If you're good at math do Physics. If you hate math because it's ****ing ****ty garbage that you won't use beyond Algebra unless you're in a math related field, take Astronomy. 
Yarn of insignificant questions
- Thread starter Sheriff-murder
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Speaking of astro-stuff, how 'realistic' are those half-split open planets that science fiction seems to like so much.
You know the type: Core's open to space, and the crust on that end is just a bunch of rocks hovering a bit away from that end.
At the very least, I'm certain that the energy required to crack a rock open like that would make the surface decidedly uncomfortable for habitation, and at the very best, the string of blown off crust would fly off or into a semi-stable orbit, and come right back down just as violently as the initial event in...what? Minutes? Something under an hour?
You know the type: Core's open to space, and the crust on that end is just a bunch of rocks hovering a bit away from that end.
At the very least, I'm certain that the energy required to crack a rock open like that would make the surface decidedly uncomfortable for habitation, and at the very best, the string of blown off crust would fly off or into a semi-stable orbit, and come right back down just as violently as the initial event in...what? Minutes? Something under an hour?
Even if the planet did crack in such a way as to have hovering chunks like that, it would most certainly collide with the larger part of the planet very quickly.
It sure does look cool, though.
Figured. See last bit. And it's how our moon supposedly formed in the first place. That theory still stand, by the way?
In any case, given that they're on a sub-orbital trajectory from the single impulse, and they don't get caught up in some stable orbit business, how long would it take for the last of them to come back down? Half a to a full (lunar) month? Less? More?
Main thing bothering me is the time frame for it. According to some documentary left running behind me a few days back mentioned that the Moon would have formed in about a year after Theia stopped being a thing, but what would've happened planetside? Giant crater-thing, or would the force of such an impact/detonation just melt everything between the core and the atmosphere to the point where any opening would be quickly resealed by a whole lot of very liquid rock?
Multi-ninja: Yes, it is, the person making it went into art, not science.
In any case, given that they're on a sub-orbital trajectory from the single impulse, and they don't get caught up in some stable orbit business, how long would it take for the last of them to come back down? Half a to a full (lunar) month? Less? More?
Main thing bothering me is the time frame for it. According to some documentary left running behind me a few days back mentioned that the Moon would have formed in about a year after Theia stopped being a thing, but what would've happened planetside? Giant crater-thing, or would the force of such an impact/detonation just melt everything between the core and the atmosphere to the point where any opening would be quickly resealed by a whole lot of very liquid rock?
Multi-ninja: Yes, it is, the person making it went into art, not science.
If Theia was as large as Mars, and did hit Earth "head-on", I'm pretty sure the damage would have been far worse than a crater. Both of them getting mushed into a giant mess of molten and semi-molten rock and metal sounds a lot more plausible to me. And I suppose that thing would then have to cool down and become a planet again.
@Vrael: Go for the real physics. Newtonian stuff is fun to think about and will give you a different outlook on daily life, and quantum mechanics and relativity is just great. You can read the all-knowing Internet for astronomy, especially if you already know what the astronomical equations are talking about.
@Vrael: Go for the real physics. Newtonian stuff is fun to think about and will give you a different outlook on daily life, and quantum mechanics and relativity is just great. You can read the all-knowing Internet for astronomy, especially if you already know what the astronomical equations are talking about.
Bromden said:
Not as much as you'd think. It's very easy applied mathematics. I'm just a bitter ****er because I failed Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus in high school. I can't numbers.
But astronomy sounds so easy. Plus I've already got a brother in college to become a physicistLumos said:@Vrael: Go for the real physics. Newtonian stuff is fun to think about and will give you a different outlook on daily life, and quantum mechanics and relativity is just great. You can read the all-knowing Internet for astronomy, especially if you already know what the astronomical equations are talking about.
Astronomy is literally as easy and as interesting as it sounds. Which is to say, very, on both accounts.
Astronomy is nice, physics is nice...I propose you make a detailed simulation of a coin toss...and go for astronomy, since you'll already have the physics down by the time you're finished.
Well, that's true of every science. I guess I just find the non-math sciences pretty easy due to interest, even a few classes in. I've never taken anything super advanced in those fields, though.
Edit: Mind you, I find the base of Astronomy math to be much easier than that of physics, because it's just so much more solid with such easily observable examples, compared to a lot of the physics problems that they have you do even from the very start that just seem like crazy bull**** a lot of the time.
Edit: Mind you, I find the base of Astronomy math to be much easier than that of physics, because it's just so much more solid with such easily observable examples, compared to a lot of the physics problems that they have you do even from the very start that just seem like crazy bull**** a lot of the time.
Physics vs Astronomy has the same distinction to me as like Math vs Economics. I find everything about the latter easier because every single thing you learn in it has a direct application to the real world. In early physics you're calculating the ****ing force generated by an object rolling down a slope or some ****. In math you're just doing equations for no reason for years before you get to anything interesting. That's my problem with the subjects, I'd say. There's no "hook" of interest for me to latch onto that I can immediately apply to the real world.
That's my perspective, but you're definitely right. A lot of astronomy is applied physics, yes, but in a way that is interesting enough that I would say people like me who normally have trouble wrapping their head around contrived math problems can do well at it either way.
That's my perspective, but you're definitely right. A lot of astronomy is applied physics, yes, but in a way that is interesting enough that I would say people like me who normally have trouble wrapping their head around contrived math problems can do well at it either way.
Similar threads
