|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 26, 2015 0:24:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jun 26, 2015 11:32:49 GMT -5
No surprising, I got an A, but not because of what I learned in high school science (I did pre-med in college, then med school, which is where I learned most of my chemistry and all of my physics).
Don't feel bad, gk. One of the "correct" answers is wrong: oxygen + hydrogen may create water (H2O) or it may created peroxide (H2O2), depending on the nature of the reaction, which was not specified. I still got the "correct" answer because I recognize a trick question when I see one.
The question about P waves and S waves must be high school physics, as I never heard of them. In medicine, P and S waves (more properly, QRS complex) are part of an EKG, and look nothing like the diagram.
And yes, diamonds are a giant covalent structure, but you can create a solid lattice structure with either ionic or covalent bonds. I think they put the "diamond" part in there just to spark some interest among bored high schoolers. But the multiple covalent bonds do make diamonds especially hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jun 26, 2015 16:29:32 GMT -5
I got 14/20 right. They gave me a B, but really, that's only 70 percent, isn't it? Barely passing. I never took physics, even in high school, but I have found myself pretty interested in it these last few years and I wish I had courses in advanced math and also physics. (I adored chemistry.) This summer I have been reading a lot of Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and just bought a book by physicist Brian Greene. I guess at this point the science and math would be way too tough for me, but I do find the "science appreciation" reading and viewing (Nova, for example), really ..... absorbing. Yuk, yuk, yuk.  |
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jun 26, 2015 16:30:55 GMT -5
I got the dang water question wrong because I figured they would have put two atoms of hydrogen in there if that's what we were making. Grr.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jun 26, 2015 20:48:48 GMT -5
I got the dang water question wrong because I figured they would have put two atoms of hydrogen in there if that's what we were making. Grr. Like I said - trick question. I don't think the science and math would be "too hard" for you - if HS kids can do it, we can too! The books you've chosen are a lot better than dry textbooks. |
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jun 26, 2015 20:53:02 GMT -5
After the Sate Capitol Trailer photo, someone else posted:
//Walmart has announced they will no longer sell merchandise based on the Confederate flag.
Game over, white people. Game over.//
Next posts:
//You really think because Walmart won't sell confederate flags and associated goods, that they will magically disappear?//
//Well, other retail outlets will likely charge more than Wal-Mart did, so it's likely to be outside of the average white trash's ability to pay - of course, they could use the money they save on dentistry.//
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jun 26, 2015 21:07:05 GMT -5
I got the dang water question wrong because I figured they would have put two atoms of hydrogen in there if that's what we were making. Grr. Like I said - trick question. I don't think the science and math would be "too hard" for you - if HS kids can do it, we can too! The books you've chosen are a lot better than dry textbooks. Really, I could not do the math. If my eyes were already half crossed they would be when I tried to solve an algebraic equation, not to even think about calculus. But I love to read "about" science and scientists and the fantastic discoveries they make. I mean, what I read causes me to marvel at what scientists even question or think of to experiment with. Like Faraday and his putting a magnet inside a coil (which generated electricity). Who thinks of doing that?!! |
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 27, 2015 10:09:01 GMT -5
I got 14 of 20. It definitely seemed top-heavy on physics, which I took back in high school, before we knew about lasers. I also noticed that there were some new terms for things like "warm blooded." And — SPOILER ALERT — question 3 was a trick question, where the picture did not illustrate the wording of the question. I knew the concept. And they fooled me on the hydrogen/oxygen question the same as they fooled booklady.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Jun 27, 2015 19:12:38 GMT -5
15/20 scored a B. Yes. I'm grateful, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Jul 1, 2015 20:29:59 GMT -5
I got an A. I took 8 years of science in high school (and 6 semesters in college - I was a Geology major before Calculus convinced me to find a new major), yet I managed to avoid physics altogether. Some of my answers were (slightly educated) guesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 1, 2015 22:36:20 GMT -5
Yup, lots of trick questions. I suspect that nowadays the "teach to the test" philosophy means the student knows the answers to the questions, but doesn't necessarily understand the subject.
As long as no child is left behind (on test scores) then knowing the subject is irrelevant. Or a fortunate co-inky-dink.
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 4, 2015 13:03:36 GMT -5
I got an A. I took 8 years of science in high school (and 6 semesters in college - I was a Geology major before Calculus convinced me to find a new major), yet I managed to avoid physics altogether. Some of my answers were (slightly educated) guesses. How did you manage 8 years of science in high school? Two courses a year? |
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 4, 2015 15:35:08 GMT -5
I was wondering the same thing, but in most schools I think math counts as a science. Even then, how do you get 8 years?
Still, I had finished every math the school offered by the end of my junior year with calculus. I don't think they offered physics, so I had one year of biology, one year of chemistry, that was it. 5 years of math and science, all they offered in New Orleans. And calculus was optional, I only took it because I liked math.
|
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Jul 6, 2015 7:16:41 GMT -5
Biology, Advanced Biology, Biology Lab Assistant, Field Biology, Chemistry, Advanced Chemistry, Geology, Advanced Geology, Geology Lab Assistant, Ecology. Field Biology was a summer course that gave 1 semester of credit. It was field trip heavy - 2 or 3 per week - and also involved a week of camping in the Shawnee National Forest. (Back then going to summer school was a cool thing to do, not just because you failed out of a regular course. I also took 2 summers of golf/bowling which got me out of an entire year of P.E., a creative writing class, and a class about Native Americans. The last 2 gave me a semester of English and a semester of Social Studies.) Ecology and the two Lab Assistant classes were 1 semester courses, as well. And yes, there were several years when I took more than one science class at a time.
I had enough credits in high school that I could have graduated early. I loved school far too much to do something goofy like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jul 6, 2015 8:13:35 GMT -5
I was (am) a dullard at anything but English with some squishy soft stuff like history, pych, sociology, poli-sci thrown in. The only way I passed Chemistry was because my teacher (a friend of my father's) let me hand in 92 extra credit reports on chemists, which I pretty much copied verbatim from the encyclopedia.
I'm not even going to try to take the test. I'm fragile.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jul 6, 2015 8:15:36 GMT -5
You guys are smart. I seem smarter than I am because I know words. But, on the whole, I'm kind of dumb.
I heard someone say once to a writer they had hired, "Just word it up and tie it with a bow." That's what I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Jul 6, 2015 9:44:17 GMT -5
I don't believe that for a minute, Jane. The part about you being dumb. The part about us being smart is 100% accurate.  |
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 6, 2015 14:23:02 GMT -5
I don't believe that for a minute, Jane. The part about you being dumb. The part about us being smart is 100% accurate. Lirio is absolutely correct. Writers cannot be dumb. They have to be able to understand and explain everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Jul 6, 2015 18:03:35 GMT -5
Especially all about chemists.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 7, 2015 11:47:20 GMT -5
Lirio and Booklady are correct. You are not dumb, Jane. At the very very least (should there be a comma in there?) you know all those things about life that you learn from the little kids in your classes. And you are smart enough to pay attention to them, which most people are not. Art Linkletter excepted, because he wrote "Kids Say the Darndest Things."
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 7, 2015 21:26:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 9, 2015 0:17:15 GMT -5
Booky, you and the average CSM reader did better than me, I scored 62%. Oh Well. I renewed my subscription to the Monitor since it had run out. I'll do better next time!
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 9, 2015 15:17:43 GMT -5
Well THAT is difficult to believe. I guess I'm getting something out of all this Cosmos stuff I am studying.
I am almost done with a really intriguing book called "The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What's Behind It All," by a PhD astrophysicist named Bernard Haisch. He attempts to bridge the chasm between science (especially physics) and spirituality. His theory of creation by subtraction is beyond fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 9, 2015 20:44:36 GMT -5
The bits and pieces I've read about Einstein and quantum physics are mind-expanding for me. So much about god in most religions is so limited and human. I believe one of the worst things that happened to human spiritual growth was Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine ceiling. It's glorious, awe-inspiring art, but it permanently distorted the meaning of making man "in his own image." So will I like this book, BL?
|
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Jul 9, 2015 21:18:16 GMT -5
Dang! "The page has been removed." I can't take the test. I've been gone too long.
Anyway, it gives me a great opportunity to tell Bookie how much I love seeing her here. And in the first person: Bookie! I love seeing you here!
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 10, 2015 8:53:54 GMT -5
GK, I think you might like the book. I finished this morning and I think it's excellent. He argues against both religiosity that is blind to science and its discoveries, and reductionism that won't allow for the metaphysical, the spiritual laws that have not (yet) been measured scientifically. Check out some of the reviews on Amazon (there are 5 star reviews and 1 star reviews and levels in between), or here - here's one by a real scientist: henry.pha.jhu.edu/haisch.html. Here is why I read it, and why I like it: while I have no issue with accepting and believing that there is a God, a metaphysical reality, the older I get the more I want to know or have a way to think about what God is. Haisch's discussion of consciousness and quantum behavior of light does that. |
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 10, 2015 8:55:52 GMT -5
Dang! "The page has been removed." I can't take the test. I've been gone too long. Anyway, it gives me a great opportunity to tell Bookie how much I love seeing her here. And in the first person: Bookie! I love seeing you here! Thank you, BB!  |
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 10, 2015 12:19:10 GMT -5
BB you can take the test, just use the first part of the link, up to "take our quiz/" It will come right up on google.
And all y'all might like the work of Fritjof Capra. He is a brilliant physicist and a great person. One of my life's peak experiences was taking a week-long seminar with him at Esalen Institute. I can't truly speak for him, but I think he would agree with my sentiment that a real scientist has to know that God exists - it's obvious when examining the world around us. "The universe in a blade of grass."
This is from his wiki bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra)
//He has written popular books on the implications of science, notably The Tao of Physics, subtitled An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. The Tao of Physics asserts that both physics and metaphysics lead inexorably to the same knowledge. After touring Germany in the early 1980s, Capra co-wrote Green Politics with ecofeminist author Charlene Spretnak in 1984.//
|
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Jul 10, 2015 17:28:43 GMT -5
Looks good, Doc. I'm going to get a copy. There is a 2010 edition that includes an updated intro/preface that mentions new discoveries in the years since it was first published. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Jul 11, 2015 9:54:29 GMT -5
15/20 scored a B. Yes. I'm grateful, too. Well, looky there. I already took the test. Huh. There don't seem to be a lot of firing brain cells available for pre-road trip memories. |
|
Dopey Member
