Jump to content

Photon Guy

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Photon Guy

  1. My dad was a tenure professor and he did teach science at a graduate school although he taught political science so its probably not the kind of science that would be talked about much on this forum, and he had more than enough family time. If you don't want students to select your class because they think they can get good grades with minimal effort than don't hand out As. The thing about teaching is that's how you learn the most, and there's always something new. You're not doing the same old thing over and over again like my friend who is coating microchips. And when you do work for a company, if you make a discovery or invention you don't get credit for it, not the least being financial credit. An example would be when the chemist Spencer Ferguson Silver III invented post-it notes he didn't get a penny for his invention, it all went to 3M, the company he worked for. If you're teaching at a university or graduate school and you discover or invent something Im not sure if it belongs to the university, or if you can make your own profit from it. Im in the USA and professors do quite well here, or at least they make decent livings. Research is fun as that's where all the action is, its not like you're just doing procedural stuff as you could be if you're working for a company. Professors do need good teaching expertise, what they don't need is babysitting expertise as schoolteachers do, particularly elementary school teachers.
  2. That depends on what kind of teacher you are and who you're teaching. Im thinking along the lines of being a college professor. When you're a college professor you're teaching grown up students so you can do actual teaching instead of babysitting. And professors make good salaries too, a good professor can make over 100G a year and some professors make over a million a year so if I were to teach science I would want to be a college or graduate school professor.
  3. I was thinking, if you really enjoy science and you want a science career that you might really enjoy, you could teach. All too often people who go into science careers get boring jobs. A good friend of mine whose really smart and whose got a doctorate in chemical engineering is working for a technology company where he's coating microchips. He makes really good money doing that but its just the same thing over and over again day in and day out, coating chips, so he is a bit bored with his job. I was thinking though, teaching can be a really fun job where you actually learn something every day because, after all, you learn the most from teaching. So I would think, teaching science is a really good career that you can really enjoy if you enjoy science.
  4. As a Star Wars fan myself I will say that yes people do take Star Wars very seriously but we all know its pretend. As for applying physics to Star Wars I know its not going to go well what with Star Wars being pretend and all, so that's why I posted in The Lounge.
  5. True, but the part about Samuel Jackson playing Mace Windu and using a purple bladed lightsaber was obviously not meant to be taken seriously, unless lightsabers are real, (and sadly they aren't.)
  6. My post was supposed to be humorous and not taken too seriously, that's why I posted it in The Lounge but for some reason it's been moved to the Physics section.
  7. I briefly talked about this before on this forum about the process of how a car works, gasoline burns and in doing so gives off kinetic energy which goes through a bunch of processes (pushing pistons, turning gears, ect.) until finally it gets to the wheels and serves its intended purpose, moving the car forward. Anyway I believe it was mentioned here that about 80 percent of the energy is lost, its lost in the form of heat and friction. If only 20 percent of the energy is used to make the car go that's quite inefficient, can we make cars more efficient?
  8. What I learned in physics about visible light is that the shorter the wavelength the more energy it has, thus red which has the longest wavelength is the outermost color on the rainbow because it bends the least, colors with longer wavelengths bend less and also have less energy. Likewise, violet has the shortest wavelength and that's why its the innermost color on the rainbow, because it bends the most with its short wavelength. Also since it has the shortest wavelength it has the most energy so therefore violet lasers are the most powerful. So this being the case I would like to say that Samuel Jackson is smart. Samuel Jackson who played Mace Windu wanted a purple lightsaber. George Lucas said he could have blue or green but Jackson insisted on purple so Lucas gave him what he wanted. So Samuel Jackson was smart to want purple since violet has the most energy and violet lasers are the strongest, so Samuel Jackson AKA Mace Windu has the strongest lightsaber.
  9. Yes, a fictional and very funny character.
  10. So are you saying Howard Wolowitz isn't a scientist?
  11. An engineer is a specific type of scientist. The term "scientist" is very broad, an engineer is just a specific type of scientist, there are many different types of scientists. Not all scientists are engineers but engineers are all scientists, of a type.
  12. An engineer is a scientist. The Wright Brothers were engineers, so there you have it, an engineer is a scientist, a type of scientist. And I do believe the Wright Brothers did become relatively wealthy from their airplane inventions. From early on Jeff Bezos displayed scientific interests and technological proficiency and he graduated college with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree in electrical engineering and computer science. Elon Musk graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics. Bill Gates took computer science courses. I would say all three had some training in science in their educational backgrounds. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard because he didn't need to go there anymore, he was ready to start his career in computers.
  13. For somebody with a passion for science, it can, in my opinion, be a very rewarding career. Also, there's lots of wealth in a career as a scientist, indeed you can make mountains of money. Something that is inaccurate, I believe, about the fictional character of Sheldon Cooper, is that he isn't rich. He lives in an apartment that he shares with Leonard. A good scientist should be rich enough to be able to live in a mansion. Im not saying a scientist necessarily would live in a mansion, just that a good scientist should be able to afford to live very well if one wants to. Take for instance Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates. There you have it, scientists make mountains of money.
  14. Who would've thought that the inventions of Charles Babbage and Alexander Graham Bell would be merged and miniaturized. Now, if we could only do the same thing with the inventions of Henry T Ford and the Wright Brothers.
  15. So having electric engines would be less polluting, not just in terms of emissions but in terms of other factors such as friction.
  16. Motors for any kind of gas or electric machine be it a car, lawnmower, ect.
  17. Well I don't see why such pollutants would be any worse in an electric motor than they would be in a gasoline motor. So is there any point to having smoke stacks?
  18. In terms of electrical systems causing pollution, I do know that electricity creates ozone which I believe can be harmful at ground level. I don't know about any other harmful emissions or pollutants created from electricity.
  19. It is common knowledge that burning fossil fuels can be harmful to the environment. However, if we are going to burn fossil fuels I believe there are ways to do it that are less harmful. For instance, smoke stacks. With smoke stacks you don't have ground level pollutants. Ground level pollutants are more harmful than pollutants way up in the air which is why I believe factories are required to have them. However there are some machines that burn fossil fuels that will result in ground level pollutants the most obvious being cars and trucks. Other gas operated machinery such as lawnmowers, leaf blowers, tractors, etc, further contribute to the problem. As it is, they do have cars that are 100% electrical and more and more are being developed. While 100% electric cars are not so common, yet, what has become quite common are hybrid cars, cars that use both gas and electricity. Lots of people drive hybrid cars including myself. I see no reason why electrical versions of other machinery also can't be made. However, even if everybody drove electric cars and used electric machinery the electricity would still have to be produced and electricity is produced in power plants which burn fossil fuels, hence you're back at that problem of the pollutants that result when fossil fuels are burned. However, power plants could use smoke stacks so that we at least won't have ground level pollutants, not the kind that are produced by cars and trucks. Also, there are methods for producing electricity that don't use fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and water power come to mind. The Niagra Falls has water wheels that produce electricity that power much of the surrounding area, I remember seeing that when visiting. In places such as Iowa you see windmills all over the place. And solar power, while it leaves much to be desired, it is being researched and developed right now and new developments in the field of solar energy are being made all the time. So we're making good progress. Im for clean energy.
  20. From what I know, when you melt down rusty metal the rust floats to the top. However, I heard that with smelting there are chemical procedures to actually reverse the rusting effect, that after melting down the metal they will somehow turn the rust back into its natural form. Rust forms when oxygen combines with the metal so supposedly there's ways to remove the oxygen from the rust. This reversal process I believe involves the use of chemicals.
  21. If the Earth was the size of a tennis ball, this video explains the size and scale of the universe. This video will make you feel very small.
  22. How about a water wheel, isn't that harnessing gravity to power a motor? If you've got a waterfall and you build a water wheel, you're using gravity to make the wheel move.
  23. So its the Kelvin scale that's used in Physics.
  24. So with the Celsius temperature system zero degrees is the temperature at which water freezes and one hundred degrees is the temperature at which water boils, quite simple. Fahrenheit is a bit more complicated with 32 being freezing temperature and 212 being boiling temperature. To the best of my knowledge Fahrenheit started out with 8 being the freezing point but then the entire scale was multiplied by 4 to give it a greater range and so 32 ended up being the freezing point, although I could be wrong. Zero degrees in the Fahrenheit system doesn't really mean anything unlike zero degrees Celsius which is when water freezes. The USA uses Fahrenheit although I believe most other countries use Celsius and supposedly Celsius is considered an all together superior system which came after Fahrenheit. I don't see the USA as ever converting to Celsius as people are used to Fahrenheit and will most likely stick with it.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.