Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#33336 02/05/10 03:33 AM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
I
Immure Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
Hello all,

I recently began to take a couple of science courses at my college just to zoom through my degree as quickly as possible, but I found myself becoming very interested in everything I was reading. Meteorology has been particularly fun, but I find the book a little lacking. I think it was made for people that have a general knowledge of science, which I have none of really. It left me asking the following questions throughout the chapters and I was wondering if anyone has some answers for them. Any quotes you see are actual text from the book.

1. "The greater the rate of vibration or rotation, the higher the temperature of the substance." They used an example of a metal rod with one end in a camp fire that gradually heats all the way to the other end. Does this mean that in that case, the molecules within the rod are vibrating? Because later on in the book it says the molecules actually aren't moving and that confuses me.

2. "Hotter bodies emit more energy than cooler ones." I was under the impression that heat was nothing but a by-product of transforming energy. If this is true, does that mean hotter bodies have more energy transformation than colder ones and do we simply measure the rate of transformation by this by-product that is created?

3. When a form of energy transforms into another form of energy, what exactly is transforming? The very molecules of the object?

4. Is movement a transformation of one energy into another?

5. Does every letter/Greek symbol in scientific notation mean the same thing? For example, will T always stand for temperature or can it sometimes stand for something like time?

6. Why does scientific notation involve so many Greek symbols?

7. Is there a formula for Farenheit to Kelvin or do you always have to change Fahrenheit to Celsius, then onward to Kelvin?

8. Why do photons at shorter wavelengths have more energy than photons at longer wavelengths?

9. Black bodies are a theoretical mass that emit the maximum possible wavelength. So theoretically, what would the maximum intenstiy of a wavelength be? Is there even a measurement for it or is it simply infinite?

10. Why are some gray bodies(such as water) better at radiating energy than others(such as aluminum)?

11. In the case of convection, the air closest to the earth heats and expands, causing buoyancy and making it rise. But is the air in the top of the stratosphere is closest to the sun, why would it not heat first and simply stay at the top?

12. I thought we had not explored past the Milky Way yet, but I saw a picture of the galaxy in my book. Have we truly gone far enough out to take pictures of the Milky Way from outside the galaxy?

13. What is the exact definition of electromagnetic energy?

14. "Note that there is nothing unique about the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum other than the fact that our eyes and nervous systems have evoled to see this energy." Does that mean that we could one day evolve to see ultraviolet, X-rays, etc? If so, do we have theories of what it would look like?

Sorry for the huge wall of text, I'm just really curious about this stuff. Thanks for reading!

.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Immure
Is movement a transformation of one energy into another?
Only when noninertial effects (accelleration) is involved. On the other hand, how to detect free motion inertially?
Originally Posted By: Immure
Does that mean that we could one day evolve to see ultraviolet, X-rays, etc?
There's no reason for it. We are composed of carbon molecules and our energy density scale which we can perceive in form of light is well adopted to binding energy of these molecules.
Originally Posted By: Immure
Why do photons at shorter wavelengths have more energy than photons at longer wavelengths?
As a periodic waves they contain more acceleration/deceleration events per unit of space-time.
Originally Posted By: Immure
When a form of energy transforms into another form of energy, what exactly is transforming?
In Aether Wave Theory all energy transformations are basically the evaporation and/or condensation of aether particles. For example, when object falls into gravity field of massive object, it gains kinetic energy onto account of kinetic energy, and it basically dissolves in dense vacuum surounding this massive object, we could say, it evaporates into techyons, i.e. travels through time dimension into future.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
A few quickies from a non-physicist:
Originally Posted By: Immure
1. "The greater the rate of vibration or rotation, the higher the temperature of the substance." They used an example of a metal rod with one end in a camp fire that gradually heats all the way to the other end. Does this mean that in that case, the molecules within the rod are vibrating? Because later on in the book it says the molecules actually aren't moving and that confuses me.

The atoms that comprise the molecule are constantly vibrating (or jiggling, to borrow Feynman's word). So the molecules are also jiggling. The molecules in a metal bar form a 3D lattice, and so long as they don't jiggle out of their places in the lattice, the bar remains intact. In that sense, it may be said that they don't move. The temperature of the bar is actually a measure of how much jiggling the atoms are doing. If they acquire enough energy they'll jiggle right out of their lattice positions, at which point the metal will become molten.

Originally Posted By: Immure
7. Is there a formula for Farenheit to Kelvin or do you always have to change Fahrenheit to Celsius, then onward to Kelvin?

Yes, you do:

Celcius = 5*(Fahrenheit - 32)/9
Kelvin = Celcius + 273.15

but it's one formula:

Kelvin = 5*(Fahrenheit - 32)/9 + 273.15

Originally Posted By: Immure

11. In the case of convection, the air closest to the earth heats and expands, causing buoyancy and making it rise. But is the air in the top of the stratosphere is closest to the sun, why would it not heat first and simply stay at the top?

Actually, it does stay on top. Generally speaking, through the 800 miles of atmosphere, the temperature does increase with altitude, but not consistently.

The convection that you're talking about takes place in the troposphere (the lowest 11 miles of atmosphere). In this region temperature generally decreases as altitude increases. Above that is the tropopause, which is static. Above that, see:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Atmosphere.shtml

Originally Posted By: Immure

12. I thought we had not explored past the Milky Way yet, but I saw a picture of the galaxy in my book. Have we truly gone far enough out to take pictures of the Milky Way from outside the galaxy?

This might help to get a better perspective:

The most distant spacecraft is Voyager 1, launched in 1977. On August 28th 2009 it was about 10,300,000,000 billion miles away - that's about 0.0018 light years. The edge of the Milky Way (by a somewhat fuzzy definition)is about 20,000 light years. If Voyager were on a beeline for the edge, it would reach it around 11,000,000 AD.

Those picks were, needless to say, composed from data gathered from Earth, or near Earth.

Originally Posted By: Immure

14. "Note that there is nothing unique about the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum other than the fact that our eyes and nervous systems have evoled to see this energy." Does that mean that we could one day evolve to see ultraviolet, X-rays, etc? If so, do we have theories of what it would look like?

There is a tendency (though far from a guarantee) for chance mutations that prove useful to survival and reproduction to survive and be reproduced. Many species have thus evolved eyes sensitive to wavelengths that are invisible to us. It's not impossible that our distant descendants, or at least a branch thereof, might see ultraviolet, but that would occur only through the appropriate mutations occurring amid conditions in which the ability proved an asset...to survival and reproduction. What would such eyes look like? Not very different, I suspect. Birds eyes can see ultraviolet, and they look pretty similar to ours.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: redewenur
The most distant spacecraft is Voyager 1, launched in 1977. On August 28th 2009 it was about 10,300,000,000 billion miles away

Error! 10.3 10,300,000,000 billion smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
I
Immure Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
I
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
Great! Thank you so much for your answers everyone! Grasping some of these ideas has really helped me through my course.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: Immure

1. "The greater the rate of vibration or rotation, the higher the temperature of the substance." They used an example of a metal rod with one end in a camp fire that gradually heats all the way to the other end. Does this mean that in that case, the molecules within the rod are vibrating? Because later on in the book it says the molecules actually aren't moving and that confuses me.

In solids like metals the atoms/molecules vibrate, but experience no net motions relative to the surrounding atoms/molecules. The amount the vibrate is dependent on temperature; hotter = more vibration.

The atoms/molecules in liquids & gases do move relative to one another, and this motion increases with heat.

The fundamental difference in a solid is that the bonds holding the solid together are stronger than the force of the vibrations. Once the force of the vibrations exceeds the force holding the solid together, the solid will melt, and the atoms/molecules will begin moving relative to each other.

Originally Posted By: Immure
2. "Hotter bodies emit more energy than cooler ones." I was under the impression that heat was nothing but a by-product of transforming energy. If this is true, does that mean hotter bodies have more energy transformation than colder ones and do we simply measure the rate of transformation by this by-product that is created?

All bodies radiate heat as a black body (wikipedia has a good page on this). The exact wavelengths released depends on temperature - cold objects have their peak emissions in the infared, hot ones in visible light. Extremely hot objects can emit in the UV (and beyond), while extremely cold objects emit in the microwave (and beyond) range.

The absolute temp of the object also determines how much radiation it gives off. Hotter objects have more energy, and thus release it more quickly. But the total amount is determined by mass - larger objects release more energy than smaller ones. So a large, cold object could radiate as much energy as a small hot one. But if of equal mass, the hotter will always release more.

Originally Posted By: Immure
3. When a form of energy transforms into another form of energy, what exactly is transforming? The very molecules of the object?

You need to clarify here, as the answer varies greatly.

Take your example of a hot solid. In this case the heat within the solid is in the form of kinetic energy - i.e. vibrating atoms. Some of this heat is lost when this kinetic energy is transfered into photos. Thus, the atoms slow down (i.e. the sold cools) by converting that kinetic energy into photons. The atoms remain the same, but have less kinetic energy.

Originally Posted By: Immure
4. Is movement a transformation of one energy into another?

Depends. If you are accelerating an object, the answer is 'yes'. Acceleration requires a force, and forces are generated by converting potential energy into work.

If an object is moving at a constant velocity than the answer is 'no'. Objects in motion, stay in motion.

Originally Posted By: Immure
5. Does every letter/Greek symbol in scientific notation mean the same thing? For example, will T always stand for temperature or can it sometimes stand for something like time?

They vary field-to-field. Generally, in one field (i.e. physics) things are consistent, but switch fields and things can change.

Originally Posted By: Immure
6. Why does scientific notation involve so many Greek symbols?

Because science has its roots in ancient Greece, and many early scientists borrowed notation from those original scientists.

Originally Posted By: Immure
7. Is there a formula for Farenheit to Kelvin or do you always have to change Fahrenheit to Celsius, then onward to Kelvin?

Fahrenheit to Celsius is (5/9)*(Tf-32) (Tf = temp in farenheit)

Celsius to Kelvin is Tc + 273.15.

Ergo, Fahrenheit to Kelvin is [(5/9)*(Tf-32)] + 273.15

Originally Posted By: Immure
9. Black bodies are a theoretical mass that emit the maximum possible wavelength. So theoretically, what would the maximum intenstiy of a wavelength be? Is there even a measurement for it or is it simply infinite?

The most intense wavelength will be determined by the temp of the black body. The total intensity is determined by the mass of the black body (larger objects give off more energy). To have infinite energy, you'd need an infinite mass.

Originally Posted By: Immure

11. In the case of convection, the air closest to the earth heats and expands, causing buoyancy and making it rise. But is the air in the top of the stratosphere is closest to the sun, why would it not heat first and simply stay at the top?

Air is largely transparent to the wavelengths emitted by the sun. Ergo, sunlight passes through the atmosphere without warming it. As such, most of the warming occurs when the sunlight hits the ground, and is carried upwards by convection.

Originally Posted By: Immure
12. I thought we had not explored past the Milky Way yet, but I saw a picture of the galaxy in my book. Have we truly gone far enough out to take pictures of the Milky Way from outside the galaxy?

No. However, the shape of the galaxy can be determined using telescopes, radio telescopes, etc, from where we are. Think of a room - you can see its shape and measure its dimensions while sitting in it - you don't need to go outside to see its shape and size.


Originally Posted By: Immure

14. "Note that there is nothing unique about the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum other than the fact that our eyes and nervous systems have evoled to see this energy." Does that mean that we could one day evolve to see ultraviolet, X-rays, etc? If so, do we have theories of what it would look like?


Yes and no. Our eyes function by using chemicals that absorb the wavelengths we see, in a fashion where the absorbing chemicals are "excited"; meaning they have an electron that gains a little bit of extra energy. In theory, this could work for any wavelength.

However, high energy photons tend to break bonds, not excite them. This wouldn't prevent us from viewing these wavelengths, but rather would require a "sacrificial" receptor to first absorb the light, and break a bond. The energy of that broken bond could then be passed onto more conventional photoreceptors. There are actually organisms which use this method, not to see, but rather to protect them from UV light. They capture the UV using sacrificial proteins, and then pass the energy onto other proteins, similar to the ones found in our photo-receptors.

As for what we would see - very little. Not much UV, Xray or gamma ray energy reaches the earth (well, there is a lot of UV these days, but up until we destroyed the ozone layer little made it through). As such it would be pretty dark.

For example of what we could see from space, google "chandra xray observatory" for samples from a satellite that takes those kinds of images.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
ImagingGeek: If you are going to pretend you are some sort of expert on the subject, at least get the basic facts correct.

After my initial attempts at correcting your errors, I gave up, it just wasn't worth the effort.

These days, I usually can't be bothered making the effort to correct you, but it irks me to see you "teach" others total rubbish.

I didn't read your post carefully, but these errors stood out like a sore thumb.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
All bodies radiate heat as a black body (wikipedia has a good page on this).

Real objects NEVER behave as black bodies.

A black body emitter is an idealized object, not a real object.

Terms such as "gray body" have been introduced because of this (and even a "gray body" is an idealization).


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The total intensity is determined by the mass of the black body (larger objects give off more energy).

The intensity of the radiation produced by a black body is dependent ONLY on the temperature.

It is NOT dependent on the mass.

Maybe you are using the word intensity when you mean something else.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Air is largely transparent to the wavelengths emitted by the sun. Ergo, sunlight passes through the atmosphere without warming it.

Air contains water vapor and water vapor absorbs the infrared emitted by the sun quite strongly.

Hence, air is NOT largely transparent to the wavelengths emitted by the sun.

It is however relatively transparent to the visible spectrum.

On a clear day about one quarter of the visible spectrum is absorbed by the atmosphere.

For the above reasons sunlight DOES warm the atmosphere, contrary to the Geek's claims.


----------------

The opening around India.



Notice that India is pushed under the rest of Asia, forming the Himalayas.

Cool animations, eh?

From: Worlds Collide.

Also, See if there are any topics of interest to you on my little forum:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts


Last edited by preearth; 07/25/10 08:25 AM.

Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: preearth


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The total intensity is determined by the mass of the black body (larger objects give off more energy).

[b]The intensity of the radiation produced by a black body is dependent ONLY on the temperature.

It is NOT dependent on the mass.

Kind of obviously more power is emitted by a body with a larger surface area, everything else being the same. So something could cool faster if it had a larger surface area - I agree it's nothing to do with mass. Temperature determines both the intensity and the energies of the individual photons, but not total amount of radiation (there's a special word for that which I forget).

Quote:

On a clear day about one quarter of the visible spectrum is absorbed by the atmosphere.

So the other 75% heats up the ground :P


The fact that we see in the visible spectrum is kind of interesting. It's not just by chance. The visible spectrum happens to be located right at a spot where water has a massive increase in transmissivity. So under the sea or, I suppose in wet air, or in an animal with eyes filled with water (like ours) things would be pretty dark at any other nearby wavelength.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
The fact that we see in the visible spectrum is kind of interesting.

The visible spectrum is the region of the suns greatest emmision (it peaks around green).

This is probably the reason we see in the visible spectrum.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
All bodies radiate heat as a black body (wikipedia has a good page on this).

Real objects NEVER behave as black bodies.

A black body emitter is an idealized object, not a real object.

Terms such as "gray body" have been introduced because of this (and even a "gray body" is an idealization).


I agree, but for the sake of simplicity I used black body. The emissions of real bodies get filtered by atmosphere, etc. However, your use of grey body is equally wrong - a gray body is a theoretical object which emits/absorbs light equally at all wavelengths.


Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The total intensity is determined by the mass of the black body (larger objects give off more energy).

The intensity of the radiation produced by a black body is dependent ONLY on the temperature.


No, that is both totally wrong and half-wrong.

Half-wrong first. If you have two objects at the same temperature, one twice as big as the other, the larger mass will emit more total photons and thus more energy than the smaller mass. The exact amount of emission is linearly related with surface area, and thus is related to the mass of the object. Keep in mind, black body radiation is calculated as energy released per unit area - double the area you'll double the total energy emitted.

Likewise, the total emittable energy, as in how much energy can be emitted before the black body reaches ambient temperature, is directly proportional to its mass. More mass = more stored heat = more emittable photons.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Maybe you are using the word intensity when you mean something else.

Perhaps. In the biol field we use intensity in the context of photons/energy emitted per second - i.e. in watts. Physics conventions may differ (watts/m2?).

Originally Posted By: preearth
Air contains water vapor and water vapor absorbs the infrared emitted by the sun quite strongly.

Sure, but the sun emits most of its energy in the visible spectrum, so its essentially irrelevant to the question asked.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Hence, air is NOT largely transparent to the wavelengths emitted by the sun.

LOL, sure it is. Otherwise it would be awfully dark. More to the point:


As you can clearly see, the vast majority (greater than 95%) of the suns energy is emitted in the visible and UV regions - both regions which are little absorbed by todays atmosphere.

So bascially your critisisms are:

1) I didn't use your mis-use of the term "grey body",
2) I understand the relationship between surface area, mass, and blackbody emissions while you do not, and
3) You're not aware of the spectral makeup of solar radiation.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

smaller mass. The exact amount of emission is linearly related with surface area, and thus is related to the mass of the object. Keep in mind, black body radiation is


???

Of course mass is "related" to the surface area of an object - but not linearly, and it's related to a whole lot of other properties too, so mass is a pretty useless property for predicting the intensity of radiation of a general object, even a black body.

Quote:

Likewise, the total emittable energy, as in how much energy can be emitted before the black body reaches ambient temperature, is directly proportional to its mass. More mass = more stored heat = more emittable photons.

I think you're going off on a tangent here. Who says it's cooling? Lots of things radiate light without cooling down - like a light bulb!


Last edited by kallog; 07/29/10 01:45 PM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Perhaps. In the biol field we use intensity in the context of photons/energy emitted per second - i.e. in watts. Physics conventions may differ


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_intensity

It's a bit pointless to argue something without agreeing on the terminology first. Light is a particularly nasty subject with lots of seemingly similar but crucially different quantities.

I think you guys simply disagree on the terminology. Obviously the larger surface area emits more "photons per second", but it doesn't emit more "photons per square meter of material per second" or more "watts per square meter of material".

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: preearth

The visible spectrum is the region of the suns greatest emmision (it peaks around green).

This is probably the reason we see in the visible spectrum.


Yea it's probably related to that too. But the link with the transmissivity of water is quite spectacular, this graph shows how the visible spectrum is in the best possible location for animals on a watery planet -


Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

smaller mass. The exact amount of emission is linearly related with surface area, and thus is related to the mass of the object. Keep in mind, black body radiation is

Of course mass is "related" to the surface area of an object - but not linearly, and it's related to a whole lot of other properties too, so mass is a pretty useless property for predicting the intensity of radiation of a general object, even a black body.


I never said mass and SA were linear; only related. The exact mathmatical relationship depends on the shape of the object.

Quote:

Likewise, the total emittable energy, as in how much energy can be emitted before the black body reaches ambient temperature, is directly proportional to its mass. More mass = more stored heat = more emittable photons.

I think you're going off on a tangent here. Who says it's cooling? Lots of things radiate light without cooling down - like a light bulb! [/quote]

True, but without a source of additional energy, things cool. And when talking about such objects, their mass directly determines the amount of black body radiation they emit - whether you measure in photons, watts, or whatever unit you choose.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never said mass and SA were linear; only related. The

I know, so I didn't claim you said that either. I said not linearly to show that it wasn't very convenient for determining the "amount" of emitted radiation.


Quote:

True, but without a source of additional energy, things cool. And when talking about such objects, their mass directly determines the amount of black body radiation they emit - whether you measure in photons, watts, or whatever unit you choose.


In the transient case it's meaningless to define the radiation in watts because the emitted power is changing with time. But I don't think Preearth was talking about transient cooling, nor the original poster. It's quite an obscure complication to subtly add which doesn't give much insight into the main idea.

Even then, surely it's "thermal mass" not gravitational mass that's important. Otherwise every material would have the same specific heat per unit mass.

So I still can't see what mass has to do with it at all. In the constant-temperature case a sphere of metal will emit fewer photons/time than the same piece of material at the same temperature but spread in a sheet. However the "watts per unit area" would be the same in both cases, and both quantities would also be unchanged if a denser metal is used. Nor would they change if the sphere is hollowed out, reducing its mass but making no difference to the emitted light.

Maybe in biology light emitting things are always transparent, so thicker materials emit more light?? But it's still only indirectly related to mass.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Let me be a bit clearer. You could say the radiant power emitted by a black body at constant uniform temperature is either:

1) A function of its temperature and surface area

or

2) A function of its temperature, mass, shape(not size) and density.

or

3) A function of its temperature, shape and size.

or

4) A function of its temperature, price, shape(not size) and price per volume.


It seems to me that 2 and 4 are just as good as each other, and both pretty useless since we have 1 available.


Last edited by kallog; 07/30/10 03:21 AM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Immure wrote:
"I recently began to take a couple of science courses at my college just to zoom through my degree as quickly as possible,..."

Whilst the discussion as a result of your interests is very interesting I am very concerned that anyone would want to 'zoom through a degree as quickly as possible'. Why would that be? You are fortunate to have reached college and university is the one time in your life when you can really explore all the possibilities in your chosen field, or, as you have found Immure, there are other knowledge pathways outside that area that sound very interesting and you are going too quickly to explore them.

This opportunity won't happen again until you are really OLD, Immure, if at all, so make the most of the opportunity you have, and don't be in such a hurry.

Why is such haste more important to you than exploring some of the areas you find fascinating at college?


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5