Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CarbonCopy

  • Birthday 07/14/1995

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bangalore, India
  • Interests
    Science, Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy, Sanskrit, Greek
  • College Major/Degree
    Still in High School
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry, Biology, Physics ( everything basically )
  • Occupation

CarbonCopy's Achievements


Baryon (4/13)



  1. Engineers in academia seem to do very similar research when compared to scientists (albeit a bit more on the application side), and I'm sure they apply the scientific method more that the engineering design process when doing research. So, are engineers who do such type of research considered as scientists?
  2. If someone were to convince these students of how amazing learning is, they would spent more time in self learning. But, school gets in the way of that. If a student doesn't like school for whatever reason, he would have an aversion for the things taught there and would be frustrated with it. Thus, he would look to other activities as catharsis. So, school is the root problem, not the students. The education system is more interested in catching fish for students so that they can be fed at that time and can pass an exam, whereas what students really need is to be taught how to catch the fish itself, so that they can feed themselves for a lifetime. To me the whole ideology of our education system is broken. It's time we fix this, as we are wasting the most valuable resource, our human resource.
  3. I want to do research, especially in an area like nanotech or materials. So, in regards to this, should I do a Phd in chemical engineering or chemistry for a research career in these areas? I'm leaning a bit to chemE because nanotech is engineering after all, and I have heard that learning chemE gives you more of an all round knowledge. But, then again, in chemistry I would get to learn a lot more about organic, inorganic and other stuff. But, I'm not totally sure and would like to hear you opinion. I'm currently doing my ug in chemE.
  4. As the poster above stated, it's just a shorthand to say that it could be in the ortho, para or meta position.
  5. We hardly know how the brain works. We still don't have a clear picture as to what intelligence is in the brain. Nor do we know what traits ( memory, wisdom, common sense ) make up intelligence. That is why I find it absurd that we try to measure and grade people's intelligence with a number (or a letter if it's a grade) , when we don't know how it works. It is funny how we try to measure something so varied with the same yardstick. What is your take on this ? Is it a wrong practice to be measuring a person's intelligence based on a number/letter ?
  6. Not exactly. You see, there was no exact word science in the modern sense in Sanskrit or in any other Indian language. That is because they did not follow our logic of obtaining knowledge ( science ) and followed a different one. Just that, nowadyas, meanings of words such as Vigyan ( in Hindi ) have been altered to better suite these languages for the modern world. They originally did not mean science or knowledge but something different ( stuff in vedic philosophy ) But, your point still stands. Science comes from the latin verb 'to know' and the word for knowledge. But, the modern meaning of science is different from the root word. That is because, before the Renaissance, science actually meant knowledge. But, after the Renaissance, we developed techniques such as scientific method, etc. People realized these methods of getting knowledge was more important than the knowledge itself. So, the meaning of science was changed the modern one. A rough history lesson on the word science .
  7. This is pretty much the reason. Paper is made of cellulose which has quite a bit of air in between ( in the gaps ). Now when we put oil, it fills those gaps and reduces the scattering at many of the air-cellulose interfaces. Oil's refractive index is not that far from cellulose, so that helps making it more translucent.
  8. Well that is your definition, but, that does not mean it is the real one. Science is the methods and not the facts. I like to call the facts as the 'products' of science
  9. I am not talking about it from the alien's point of view. I am talking about it from OUR point of view, where our society seems to be more placing their aspirations and fears on this alien myth that we are constructing, much like how the ancient people did with what they called god. It seems small, but, I feel that it is gaining momentum, because of all the movies, subculture and myths we are creating around these aliens. I mean they even have their own pilgrimage site, Roswell . Maybe I am over-generalising, and this applies to few fanatical people only. I'm not sure, that is why I want to discuss this with you guys.
  10. Not necessarily. What you are taking about is nucleophillic addition reaction and not addition in general. In electrophillic add reaction, this is reversed. In this case the substrate ( the one being attacked ) is the one that is nucleophillic and the electrophille is the reagent ( the attacker ). For eg, -C=C- is a nucleophillic center ( so it is substrate ) which can give electrons to an electrophile ( reagent ), like H+, and this adds to the double bond. This is nucleophillic addition. But, in a C=O group, the carbon is an electrophillic center due to action of oxygen. So, a nucleophile adds to it. This is nucleophillic add.
  11. Well, that definition is completely wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. To quote from wiki : Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Edit - swansnot ninja'd me
  12. It can't be done with 100% efficiency, but, the efficiency is getting better. In fact, the show Ecopolis on the Science Channel ( called Discovery Science where I live ), did an episode on this, where some guy had developed the technology by which sunlight could be transferred to the interior of a room with really good efficiency. Also, check this article if found : http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/246. I think the tech for this is there, it is just a matter of cost.
  13. In the past, people would say that everything is based on god, as they could not explain it in any other way. They made elaborate stories about god(s) and this created a sort of culture and identity of the people. God for people was a way to express their ambitions and desires as a society of controlling nature. I see a parallel between that and the modern day notion on aliens. They have come to signify our fears as a technological race as well as our hopes of better tech and intergalactic travel. Also, many unexplained things are blamed on aliens. Just like the notion of God, aliens have seeped into our culture, and we are creating modern day myths such as chupacabra, little green men,etc. My question is that are Aliens the new god, in the sense that we are placing our hopes and ambitions in them and creating myths about them, just like we did with God before. NOTE : I am NOT asking whether God/Aliens exist. I am talking about how they have been/are being represented in our culture. Please do not debate if God/Aliens exist or not.
  14. Give maths a another try. You may have had a not so good experience with it in school, don't let that make you hate maths. Try Khanacademy it is really good. If you really don't want to so something with maths, then maybe biology and chemistry is a good bet. But, I still feel you should give maths another try, you might discover that you are actually good at it. Buy books and learn maths online, don't be discouraged by your math grade in school.
  • 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.