-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HamsterPower
-
-
i may be biased
but as christian,,, I don't believe in homosexuality
I think it is completely out of choice, just as other sins and i don't blame them
we are all sinners
if thats how you are naturally acting i understand cause
just like the ppl are naturally greedy (or whether the environment made us that way) it just happens naturally to us
For me as chrisitian, i think we should fight it off, (there have been cases where gay goes back to straight)
I mean its bad for health and you are suffering from ethical and moral issues, society is generally against it too
i am not saying gay people should chicken out
but more like "hey i was once gay, but i knew its not right so i decided to follow what is morally right"
again, i am being way biased here and i apologize for that
in conclusions
gay could happen naturally or by choice, but we know its not "right" and we shouldn't be encouraging people to become gays
But of course more like people to understand homosexuality and help them
-2 -
We don't see a bright night sky because most stars, and all galaxies, are so far away that they are invisible to the naked eye. Even with the most powerful telescopes we don't see a bright sky, because beyond a great enough distance, it is so far back in time that there were no galaxies and no stars yet formed.
AH i see,,,
now you guys could have told me this without having to write 12 pages of argument
*chuckles*
0 -
so if they are uniformly distributed, why don't we see a bright night sky?
aren't they going to be shining from every direction because of infinite numbers of stars?
I feel like i am the only one who doesn't get this
0 -
The observable matter in all directions around us, is from our viewpoint in the Universe spread uniformly throughout the universe. In accordance with the cosmological principle modern cosmology assumes that our location in the Universe is normal and don't differentiate from remaining regions. Thus all unseen parts of the entire Universe are thought to be filled with equal quantities of stars in roughly the same configurations as we can see from Earth.
I don't get this part, can you use easier words?
0 -
For people who never heard of this nonsense,
This theory is basically saying that there is a tube connecting from north pole to south pole and more advanced people are living there
I know it sounds crazy but there are some people seriously believing this
and testimonies that they have seen it
more info can be found in youtube but...anyways
is this physically possible? cause isn't it boiling hot in the middle of the earth?
0 -
wow this thread has become huge....
I was only curious...so let me get it straight
answer to my question, nobody really knows
but it is assumed that the space is infinite but stars are finite?
hmhmhmhm i hope i got this right
0 -
In math and physics class i learned about secant and tangent lines(?)
i was wondering if this had anything to do with trigonometry
honestly, i don't really know what they are so confusing
0 -
wow this post helped me understand a lot
0 -
I know a statistic from several years ago
that Bangladesh ranked number one for happiness and contentment in their life
So i am guessing Bangladesh would also have one of the lowest suicidal rate?
0 -
i know rite?
What i think is that before bigbang happened, there was potential energy
then when it blast opened with huge amount energy, part of it is still used for expanding the universe and rest changed to mechanical energy where different stars and planet collide and explode and that energy is sent somewhere else and so on and so forth
I believe in creation so,,, i don't wish to argue
but i think god created the potential energy
and the rest, boom
the science explains
0 -
oh thank you,, that's all i needed to know
good luck to you too
0 -
I want to become a physic's professor or teacher
and apparently i need to go to grad school and yada yada ya,, (duh obviously,,, but i didn't know that
)
I really love math and physics
so thats no prob but
When i apply to grad school and actually study at grad school
would it be easier to have done physics major or it wouldn't matter engineering science major that leans on physics?
So this is what the later one learns ( University of Toronto , engineering science -specialized in physics in 3rd and 4th year)
http://www.undergrad.engineering.utoronto.ca/Assets/UndergradEng+Digital+Assets/calendar1011/ESC.pdf
its a course calender
anyways
The reason why i am asking this is that
once in graduate university, i might need to work a bit to save money for grad school rite?
and if i have a physics degree, i thought it would be harder to get a job than engineering degree? and also it would be more easier for me to do the work if i know more about engineering for most jobs?
But when it comes to grad school, what if they won't let me apply
Idon't know where to look up this kinda information
so i ask here
where all the smart ppl are
thx in advance
)
0 -
So i just had a physics exam the other day, and we were learning about forces and frictions
While i was walking back home from school , I wondered how much more energy am i using because of walking in snow than just walking on normal dry ground (pavement)
But i don't know where to get all the Mew K for friction between by shoes and snow/pavement and energy i spend for every step i take
Can somebody give me ideas on how to calculate this?
0 -
I'm not sure if this is the norm or just something at my school, but all of my professors, the ones in the Engineering department at least, had experience working in the field before they started teaching. The most "inexperienced" was Dr. Goble, and even she had worked for an engineering firm for about six years. So that might be something you would also need to look at to be competitive in academia. Maybe.
omg i was going to put +1 on your reputation but i clicked -1 by mistake, how do i undo this !!!
0 -
O + O = ( O + E ) + 1 = O + 1 = E
^^ for the equation above
isnt't it
o +o = (o+e) +(e+1) = e+e+ o+1 = e +e =e
not that it matter much
i think this very cool
where did you get the idea of think of such?
0 -
Hi, i am not quite sure if this is the right place to ask
But anywayssss
I am confused with what kinds of degree i need in order to become a professor to teach in universities or possibly research in universities
I agree, that i know nothing about the process so it would be real kind if someone can answer me
ahaha
I heard it is very competitive indeed, But i always wanted to go to the science field and one day, receive the noble prize for physics
(omg, i am getting excited)
thank you in advance
)))))
0 -
solve each given linear system by the method of elimination
2x-3y+4z=-12
x-2y+z=-5
3x+y+2z=1
How to solve this problem. What should I do first?
at first, it seems really complicated
but once you get it , you will know it forever
so anyways
keep in mind that if you have 3 unknown variables you need 3 equations to solve it. Which you have right now
Method of elimination is solving the unknown by eliminating the unnecessary variables
For example, if you want to find x, you will need to eliminate y and z
When i mean by eliminating , it is like making them 0
3-3 is zero rite?
so is 3x-3x = 0
0 -
In order to explain Olbers' paradox, it is necessary to account for the relatively low brightness of the night sky in relation to the circle of our sun. The universe is only finitely old, and stars have existed only for part of that time. So, as Poe suggested, the Earth receives no starlight from beyond a certain distance, corresponding to the age of the oldest stars. Space is sufficiently rarefied that most lines from the Earth do not touch any star within this distance of Earth. -wikipedia-
^ is the mainstream explanation
This is known as Olbers' paradox.
0 -
wow, you wrote an essay on a topic so simple as that
College algebra...
I find it hard to believe a 12-year-old acted as an autodidact to learn the topic of calculus. It must have been a good book. I'm not sure about any of you, but in my experience, most mathematics books in the 1990s were cryptic. They were still pretty cryptic into the 2000s. It wasn't until there was a medium (the Internet), where people made it very obvious through book criticism sites, such as Amazon, that many math books are f'ing cryptic. Go back even further in history and you'll notice that they are even more and more cryptic. Luckily, some libraries actually have calculus problem set books that are around from the 1970s, so I guess it's practical for a kid to pull a Matilda and just start teaching himself. But then again, many cities, towns, and the such don't have good libraries that provide people with access to the materials to be autodidacts.
And, to my knowledge, not many grade schools actually possess calculus books. Truth be, I haven't walked in a grade school library or middle school library in many, many years; but I'm pretty sure they don't have those college-level resources there.
What am I getting at?
I'm pretty sure the kid didn't do it all by himself.
Whenever I hear or read about someone learning about a particularly advanced topic at an early age, I can't help but consider they had someone there to hold their hand. Otherwise, they had an excellent mentor who explained concepts quite easily so they were quickly understood.
In terms of neuronal development, I'm skeptical of the quick need to generate associative networks for greater information retention, understanding, and episemantic database building.
I think much of society has been led by a variety of early-age development theories that it's somehow damaged their self-esteem and belief that they can learn an advanced topic even in old age. As such, people don't dare to attempt learning the topic. That's my view.
There are a lot of theories about language development and whatnot. If there is perhaps some truth to all of the neuronal development, it might be hormone-based. I believe it's about the age of 12 where people have greater difficulty learning a new language. Before that age, people don't seem to have many problems. But surely, that's what I read over and over in the university. I don't have the data nor understanding of the methods used to collect the data.
So, it could be just as bogus as me reading something by Daniel Dennett where he describes some guy named Walters using a slide project to discuss free-will. I did read such an article by Dennett, and never once sourced nor cited was what Walters did.
I don't think I can deny, however, that some people are neuronally specialized for obtaining and digesting particular aspects of their environment. In simpler terms, I believe there are surely gifted people out there. I supposedly am gifted at math. Nonetheless, I don't really care for an intense study of the field. I find mathematics classes to be particularly boring. However, set me in front of a spreadsheet, and I seem to have fun.
One could say that I've generated a hidden layer that causes unconscious cognitive dissonance, thus causing me to have a lack of care for picking up particular mathematics materials. As such, when given a mathematics book, I don't learn as easily anymore. This goes back to any particular age-related learning issue that might come around: Some cognitive scientists believe that accumulated life experience unconsciously plays a role in making things harder to learn, similar to how a hard drive fills up. People can only hope to have a type of Zen enlightenment in order to pick up new topics.
As an aside, I do find that some people have an interesting affinity for mathematics. For instance, I have two nephews who I often discuss mathematics and statistics with. One nephew had trouble understanding the concept of tying his shoe, so I explain the process in mathematical terms. It made a lot more sense to him, and he quickly grasped how to tie his shoes. My other nephews finds amusement, as I do, in trying to determine and estimate the probability of events using mathematics, more in an actuary sense.
Also, finally, I think there is a lot of unfairness in academia. This is for sure. There are guilds, old boys' networks, and the such. Collecting the data and information is difficult, as people don't want to be exposed. As I'm not familiar with mathematics on a graduate level, I can't tell if sophisticated equipment is required to generate many new theories; but if it is, I could see not having access to such equipment to be a problem for mathematicians.
I often consider that we are still in the stone age of education, but then again, we have Internet communities who are often willing to discuss academic topics. So, it's not as if people are stranded in caves these days. Maybe we're in a renaissance.
0 -
wouldn't we have to see stars from everywhere during night? Shouldn't the space be so full of light that there is no darkness?
Isn't that what they mean by no end to space? Infinite numbers of stars as well?
OR do they mean space has no end but there are limited number of stars?
0 -
It's more like he finished learning calculus at 12 so he had that much more time to review and practice before university,
Math is a matter of practicing
1 -
my goal is to do both
there is a program in the university i want to apply to, that gives both mba and engineering phd
so i might go for that
and afterwards i will get a job in the engineering field earn some money for grad school in England, THE Cambridge and study cosmology
and become professor in physics or cosmology
Do something you like rite??
thats what your life is all about
0
Hollow Earth Theory , is it physically possible?
in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Posted
lol thats so true