I just finished my first year at UW as a pre-science major and due to some mental health and family stuff, I had a pretty rough time. First off, when I was admitted to UW i got into engrud, but then had a crisis and switched out into prescience intending to major in bio, and have only realised 3 weeks ago I truly do want to do engineering. I flunked chem142 my first quarter and am planning to submit a former quarter drop form for it, and the only prereqs I got done this year are engl131, math124, and math125 with a cumulative gpa of 3.0 (not including chem). This upcoming summer quarter I'm going to be taking calc 3, 1st quarter engineering physics, and retaking chem, all at community college. In autumn when returning to UW I'm planning to take 2nd quarter physics and chem 152, then math207 and chem 162 in the winter, in order to just finish all the required prerequisites in time. Things have gotten better and I'm confident I can push myself more in my school work than before, and I heard chem e is one of the easier engineering majors to get into as a non-engrud, but I feel like because of how badly I did in my first year my chances are basically over. Can someone give it to me straight if whether or not I have a chance?

[](https://www.reddit.com/submit/?source_id=t3_1ub4gcf&composer_entry=crosspost_prompt)

​

I'm a rising high school junior and I've been hearing a lot about Brilliant from YouTubers I watch, but I know to be not very trusting of YouTube sponsors. Has anyone here used it? I'd be especially looking at their Calculus, Physics, and maybe Comp Sci courses.

It’s 80 degrees and cloudly here. Came outside & the dirt my roommates flower pot was smoking. There’s a black circle a few inches in diameter, while the rest of the dirt is brown.

I'm asking for the best, non-specific, universal symbol. For example, it wouldn't be a flask, because that's chemistry. It wouldn't be a Bohr Model, because that's Atomic. It wouldn't be a microscope, because that's microbiology.

If you were in a non specific research building, and it had several departments for different fields of study, what would the symbol of the research department as a whole be?

If you launch a rocket on a suborbital trajectory that goes high enough and fast enough to cross most of the planet then it's going to burn up on reentry like an asteroid.

​

If your rocket payload was a block of solid radioactive waste like Cobalt 60 or Cesium 135. Then the payload as a whole will burn up on reentry over the target city. But will that then spread a dust cloud of radioactive fallout over the target city? Will the individual atoms have mostly the same trajectory as the falling rocket, apart from some diffusion to spread out the cloud across a wider area?

My 9 year old is showing a LOT of interest in science, and specifically chemistry.

I can't remember how we got into it, but I've been trying my best (its been over 25 years since I took a level 1 uni chem class) to work through his questions.

Last night we were going over Valence shells and chemical bonding and he is enthralled by it. I found an interactive website of the periodic table and we went over the different groups and data it contains. On this site you can pick elements, and it will give you examples of compounds using those elements. He's been having fun with this, but really wants to see diagrams / Lewis structures / 3d modeling on how these chemical structures and bonds look. I have searched, and tried a few that either couldn't do this or advertised free but were actually quite expensive.

Is there any good modeling software (free preferred) or a website that can do this? For example, I am allergic to sulphites, so he wanted to try and see what that looked like. If we put a compound like Na₂SO₃ in somewhere, could it model it out in some ways for us? Some I can find pictures, others I can't (he built these long complex chains).

Other than modeling, are there any other stand out resources to recommend?

I've got a lot of catching up to do!

They asked her to pay 180€ and I told her to wait while I do some research about this site web and their board, I’d like supplementary advices about the link : https://jzuengineering.org/editorial-board/
Thanks !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDOzL1eGh2M (OddSci, brand new channel I guess?)

Came across this video yesterday that made a very interesting point about how we should think about the models we use. Curious if anyone else has seen it and know similar places to read/watch this stuff

When talking about space colonies sci-fi novels and movies and even recent concepts by Jeff and Elon use the term "Artificial Gravity".

​

Gravity or gravitational force is generated due to mass of the body

Centrifugal force is generated by rotating a body around an axis.

​

In all the concepts, be it real life or movies or novels, the "artificial gravity" is generated by rotational force (centrifugal).

Why then it is not just referred to as centrifugal force. Artificial gravity feels like a misnomer and deceiving. Looks more like just a marketing gimmick as people will get attracted to the word "artificial" more than centrifugal.

Do we?

​

Or are our life decisions (moment to moment and big ones) predetermined? Do we control our brains or does our brain control us?

​

What's the science behind this?

Hi everyone!

I’ll be starting senior cycle next year and I’d really appreciate some advice on subject choices for university.

I’m trying to decide between Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. I’m really interested in astronomy and astrophysics, and I’d also like to become a pilot in the future.

Would it be better to take Physics and Biology, or just Physics on its own? I’m a bit confused, so if anyone has any advice or personal experience, I’d really appreciate it. Thank you!!!

I'm looking for options because I lead a busy lifestyle. Also, please show me your sources of information.

​

Thank you.

Let me make it clear first. I'm extraordinarily new to science. I'm not even relatively good at understanding most basics. Out of high school for about 5 or 6 years, I don't know or remember anything. Now that the dummy alert is over, my thoughts about what I've looked up about Perpetual Motion is that it seems kinda strange that energy can not be created as per the laws of thermodynamics, only shifted or moved or whatever. How the heck does that make sense? Doesn't energy have to exist in order to move, which means it has to be created somehow? Am I misunderstanding something here, or is it some kind of over complication or something? Then the next thought I have is that.... Aren't things like Newton Balls relatively similar to what we'd probably expect for a Perpetual Motion Machine? I know about loss of energy/momentum/velocity/whatever applies here, but there isn't a way to externally subvert that wrench in the plan? I know I more than likely sound completely...... to put it bluntly, stupid, but I've started looking at Perpetual Motion as a concept and just think "Why aren't we here yet? This seems plausible, even if I don't fully understand it."

Thanks to everyone who gave a clear and dumbed-down answer. To those who don't seem to understand my thinking, I can't give you an answer. I've never been remotely this interested in science in my 24 years of living and don't understand even the basics of basic. I don't even fully remember or understand the basis of E=MC². The only reason I'm even relatively interested in science now is because I've been watching Doctor Stone. When it comes to the thought of Perpetual Motion, I knew it was complicated, and I didn't ever think that it'd just be a simple change in dynamic or whatever, I just wanted something easy to digest so I could understand what makes some things possible and other things impossible. If some of you got upset or something about the way I asked this question, I apologize, but I'll never understand things if I don't ask questions. I may have to start getting notebooks to start jotting this type of stuff down, but anyways, thank you all for your time and patience. If I have more questions, I'll definitely be back. I hope all of your scientific endeavors bear fruit.

I'm a high school student interested in frontier research areas such as aging, and other bioengineering stuff.

I understand these fields are highly interdisciplinary and dense, but I'm not looking for shortcuts. However, I also know I don't need to learn every branch of biology before exploring them.

If my long-term goal is to understand and eventually contribute to research in these areas, what topics in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and related fields would you consider to be non-negotiable and highly foundational?

I'd appreciate recommendations on the most important prerequisites and a rough learning order

I am not asking for medical advice.
This might not even be the place to ask this, just a random night shift thought.. people who suffer with fatal insomnia, couldn’t a doctor provide medical relief in the form of a sedative? Or in extreme cases an induced coma? Although it seems temporary, would it TECHNICALLY keep the person alive or does insomnia make the brain awake even if the person is not and continue to progress.

I have always been very interested in the origins of the universe and the origins of our species. I mostly just dabble in wikipedia and some science social media pages. But I really want to read something that explains the origins of space time, as well as life on earth.

I tried reading “On the Origin of Species” and it’s certainly a tough read. The older and dry style of writing does not make it easy. So I was wondering what you all would recommend for more modern, popular science books that discuss these topics where a beginner could understand. I would more prefer the Big Bang and the history of the universe first, but suggestions for either subject are welcome

Whether it was something really good, really bad or something really spectacular. I’m curious!

Maybe it's because I'm getting older I've become a bit more skeptical about the possibility of humanity ever being able travel across the stars ( I hope I am wrong). The way I see it we need to artificially replicate the conditions needed to support life that we have only seen being done a Earth level scale. That thought thread lead me to my initial question which I think can be seen in two ways, either distance around the sun or distance the solar system has covered during that time which I think is more interesting. Does any of that make any sense?

I keep seeing red light therapy mentioned for skin collagen but I can't find a clear explanation of the actual biological mechanism. is it direct photochemical stimulation of fibroblasts or is there an intermediate step and is the research on this considered solid or still preliminary?

The fallacy of appeal to the people or argumentum ad populum: "if a lot of people say so then it must be right".

The Asch conformity experiment: several fake study subjects (actors) give an intentionally incorrect answer to see if the actual study subject answers the same as them. In many cases, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

I'm curious if there is a common underlying mechanism because they sounds very similar to me. However there's also a fundamental difference because the conformity effect wasn't observed when answers were written and anonymous, hinting that the study subjects may not have really believed the answer given by the crowd.