Archived threads in /sci/ - Science & Math - 1037. page

>>8563094
It needs more books, more books means more knowledge, more knowledge means more power.

The chemistry listing is so crappy. Who the fuck would recommend Griffiths for quantum mechanics unless you're an actual physics student?

>>8563107

It's an intro level quantum book, why not?

because you masturbate to anime and post frogs on internets all day

Ask him why?
Btw if this is just part of your fantasy, stop it. Not healthy.

>>8569953
It's because you're gay.

We already have photon-permeable matter deflecting materials

File: 1462291430109.gif (3MB, 264x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 264x240px

>>8569738
>Solar cells
Explain your shit

>>8569746
Requires relatively high temperatures to form however, and is somewhat structurally unstable under focused stressors

>>8569722
I did the opposite of you, almost, but because of the same reasons. I want to get into pharma r&d and I think I'll have a better chance with a bsc in chem + msc in biochem. Not sure the likes of novartis and pfizer are looking to hire molecular biologist (my case), sadly.

>>8569722
BME here with BSc. Job prospects are great, but that's also because my concentration in u grad was synthetic heart valves and flow, but I have friends who've concentrated and signaling, and have jobs also

>>8569734
ah I see, do you know anything about the job market atm for pharma? last I heard it was grim but that was a couple years ago
>>8569745
How is the job environment? do you mainly work in an office or do you do lab work and office work?

That's a strange way of drawing Von Neumann.

>>8569672
He was pretty cool, but his designs were mostly memes.

Euler or Socrates

>>8569617
Unfortunately comparative planetography hasn't reached the point where we can reliably say. There's no shortage of unanswered questions about our own planet either.

>>8569617
Erosion would change completely from wind/acid to wind and water erosion.

CO2 cycle would depend on if Venus also has tectonics, otherwise all CO2 will be bound into minerals over time.

>>8569903
Venus has no tectonic activity, as far as we know. This, combined with its closer proximity to the Sun are some of the reasons it's a hothouse. It also has a much lower rotation rate than Earth, meaning it likely doesn't have a liquid outer core or a magnetic field to keep out harmful solar radiation.

Honestly, Venus would be nearly impossible to terraform, compared to planets like Mars that we can probably inhabit, although adapting to any other planet's gravity will be cumbersome. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field either, so either way you are fucked for the long haul as solar wind strips away the atmosphere.

Damn, I guess there isn't.

>>8569565
I'm not sure what exactly your problem with quarks is? Quarks explain an unbelievably large range of phenomena very well and to question quarks, you question QCD overall as well. And you rather not do that, there's a LOT of compelling evidence for QCD.

File: up_particles.jpg (114KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x600px

>>8569565
this is cool

have it with a gatoraid and vitamin c for a complete american meal

File: c1faf_ORIG-bodybuilder_jeff_king.jpg (48KB, 450x421px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 450x421px

>>8569480
Not very. Have you ever GOMAD? DYEL?

>>8569480
>38 grams of protons

you'll be fine bruh

>>8569338
no you can't

if they're only allowing you to use a calculator that doesn't have power functions, they won't test you with questions that require you to calculate powers

>>8569344
I am afraid they will because the entrance exams includes chemistry (and physics). you cant do much calculations that have to do with acids and bases if you cant do roots and powers.

I guess we will get look up sheets for square roots and powers. Welcome to 2017.

They are fuckers for not allowing us to use normal scientific calculators. Nobody knows what to expect.

32+16-20

>>8569287
But why?

File: furries.jpg (13KB, 304x166px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 304x166px

>>8569107
If you go look at the type of people Engineering graduates are vs the type who do chemistry or biochemistry, you'll find they're pretty different cliques. Not because of the fields changing them - it's just the type of people those subjects. Just like you get obnoxious loud people studying drama, hippies in music and self-hating people in women's studies.

That's my anecdotal evidence from my uni though. I think the chemistry/biology/etc group are more fun to hang out with but I may be biased.

what do you mean "on /sci"?

in real life.

>>8569107
And here I was thinking all this time that mathematicians constituted the majority of /sci/. Turns out they are just very loud and obnoxious, and a poison to any kind of intelligent discussion.

Just a plain [math]\LaTeX[/math] layout is by far the best support to stay focused on the content and not on the layout tbqh. And that's part of the reason why textbooks suck ass (the other one being how they try to sell you complex numbers with 3D renders of fish).

>>8568903
>(the other one being how they try to sell you complex numbers with 3D renders of fish).
What the fuck?

can you give me an example

>>8568869
Name a digital intelligence that was not ultimately created by man. I'll wait.

>>8568905
It's a hypothetical... I'm looking for a manner in which to describe this.

Any other thoughts? I'll wait.

>>8568869
>digital intelligence that is not artificial

Can't happen. It has to be analog, not digital. Everything is like a variant waveform in nature, not merely on/off there/not there 0/1 states.

>>8568657
Read:
Taylor - Classical Mechanics
Griffiths - Introduction to Electrodynamics
Shankar - Principles of Quantum Mechanics

>>8568662
Do you think its possible to find them free
online?

>>8568657
>no friction, massless object, 100% efficiency
who said it's not important to know the problems in the ideal case? This prescribes an "upper limit" to the potential output.
Furthermore, you'll learn applications when your core courses bring out something and say "you should have learned this in your vector calculus class" or something.

Get over yourself

>>8568556
No, because in a true vacuum there would be nothing to levitate.

>>8568556

Any kind of rocket would work. So would psychokinesis and anti-gravity beams.

>>8568556
> any way that is feasible for the average /sci/ user to create a levitating craft which could also function in a vacuum?

Ion drives are essentially the same thing as the electron gun from a CRT TV. I could rig up something that produce a few atto Newtons of force; but that's not enough to get off the ground.