I’m trying to decide if I should take math for machine learning & artificial intelligence (5 credit hours*) (referring to as 2215 here out).
I was looking at that syllabus against the calc syllabi and there isn’t much overlap in the curricula, and that kind of math would theoretically help me out with my future goals (computational astrophysics being a coding heavy field).
However, I don’t know if it would be too much to take?
I’ll be taking calculus 1 and chemistry 1, both 5 credit hours*. I’ve taken some of calc and some of chem. I had to drop calc because I was unmedicated and chem because COVID hit. So, I'll—theoretically—have a little bit of an advantage when the semester starts.
I really miss being a busy, productive student. This semester I had to drop down to just one 3 CH class, Python coding, because I’ve been unmedicated (due to insurance reasons). But next semester I’ll be back on a regular medicine regimen, so I don’t anticipate too many problems. I did struggle a little in chem when I originally took it (more with lab than lecture, ya girl is not good with her hands like that), but my brother’s long-time girlfriend is a science teacher and I can reach out to her for help. I’m also not afraid to reach out to teachers and student services for help.
However, all of my classes are online. Calculus doesn’t have any virtual lectures that I’d have to attend, but chem (and chem lab) does and 2215 would.
I’m also currently at a community college to save up some money before transferring to Ohio State (which is not a cheap school). And if I’m going to take classes outside of my degree program (which is currently liberal sciences, and will then be physics after next semester, and then astrophysics when I transfer, because no one has a computational astrophysics program) then I’d rather do it while it’s cheap. I dunno, but I’m thinking 2215 would also look good on applications?
So, yeah, if anyone has any advice?
*For non-US, 12 total credit hours is the minimum to be considered a full-time student, 6 credit hours is the minimum for part-time.
**Note: I have reached out to friends, my mother, and my boyfriend, and I’m waiting on a response from the teacher who teaches the class.
Here’s another one of the Milky Way, taken in Amherst, MA.
Thanks to all of you who have ever taken time out of your day to ask me a question, support this blog with your attention, and thank you for loving space, science, and nature. I am thankful for y'all this year (and all the other years). ❤️
Hey, future astrophysicist here. (Currently a senior)
Just wondering, what is the best route to become an astrophysicist? I’ve heard physics for undergrad, then astrophysics after, but not really sure if there are any other ways towards it. I’m not opposed to going physics -> astrophysics, or astronomy -> astrophysics way, but I was just wondering where I can get my hands messy with the more stellar-black hole-supernova involved topics. (I do plan on teaching one day, so maybe the physics route will be more suitable, idk) There are some schools that actually offer astrophysics as an undergrad, I thought ‘it’d be nice’ but was left questioning what happens after the four years. Looking for help, thanks! ( ALSO I’m in need for university suggestions? I don’t know if that’s a thing because it’s up to me to make the final choice on where I go, but if you have or have had a positive experience with a university’s program, I’d be 100% down to consider :) )
just found out there’s going to be a paper released i contribuited to, so that means we’re on two now!!
Dark molecular cloud Barnard 68
This may look like a hole in the sky, but it’s actually full of dust and molecular gas, packed so densely that it absorbs almost all the visible light from background stars. The interiors of dark molecular clouds are among the darkest and coldest places in the universe.
“A night in Narnia”
Location: Pescadero, CA
Made by @emrrado (via Instagram)
On YouTube “Sentinel 6 Michael Frieilich Earth Science Satellite #spacex” watch it.
I’m staring down the barrel of cloudy weather for the next few days and then I’ll be on call at the hospital for a week, so I probably won’t be able to get any astrophotography done until early December. So here’s an oldie:
Unfortunately this is another image I was forced to take through significant light pollution (in Massachusetts there are very few pollution-free regions). I’m planning to drive into Vermont when I get off call to get some clearer images. Stay healthy y’allll
THE ONIONVERSE THEORY
we live in an onion. an infinite onion. this onion has holes in it that can be used to move from one layer of onion to other layers of onion. this is not the same as the wormhole. the onion and the wormhole are different.
• infinite layers
• easy transport between layers
• holes take you down the layers
- like poop going out the arse
+ however, the hole does not require stretching
• after last layer there is death
• no layers
• no layers so no transport
• hole = death
- not at all like poop
- no last layer
+ just death
× death from ‘hole eat you’
÷ not punishment
• not gravity safe
- you fall off on the so called “other side”
- since the gravity is the same as the surface you went through it would still be the same
• holes are linked
- there is a connection
this is how the onion and holes work compared to the wormhole. there are many differences between them and those differences help prove which theory is correct. the correct theory is the onion one as it is the most simplistic and easiest to understand. it does not need explanations. although the wormhole theory is more complex, it is wrong. complicated doesnt equal the right answer. the answer to the question that wasnt asked but still got an answer is: “the onionverse is true and the wormhole theory is false”
I photographed Jupiter!
Look, I took this picture of Jupiter with my Canon Eos600D with a 50-250mm len. I got to know it was this planet since, according to the sky maps, it was the only one visible at the time i took the photo along with Saturn but it’s clearly not Saturn, so it has to be Jupiter. It was located right where the sky map showed it was that night (two nights ago), and apart from that, when I put up the saturation of the picture i could notice the planet’s stripes were just like Jupiter’s stripes (second photo). So, in conclusion, this is Jupiter and i got very happy since my camera isn’t too special and i didn’t think it would be able to photograph a planet. 😁 Hope you enjoyed these pics, sorry for the bad definition, as i said, my camera is not the most modern one
HOW DO STARS DIE AND HOW LONG DO STARS LIVE??
Blog#38 Saturday, November 21st, 2020
A star’s life expectancy depends on its mass. Generally, the more massive the star, the faster it burns up its fuel supply, and the shorter its life. The most massive stars can burn out and explode in a supernova after only a few million years of fusion. A star with a mass like the sun, on the other hand, can continue fusing hydrogen for about 10 billion years. And if the star is very small, with a mass only a tenth that of the sun, it can keep fusing hydrogen for up to a trillion years, longer than the current age of the universe.
As stars get smaller, they live longer. Our own sun has been around for 4.3 billion years, slowly turning hydrogen into helium at its core. The sun will run out of this hydrogen fuel in another 5 billion year or so, and it will turn into a red giant. It will expand to many times its original size and then eject its outer layers and shrink down to a tiny white dwarf star, a dense object the size of the Earth. So the total lifespan of a star with the mass of the Sun is about 10 billion years.
The smallest stars are the red dwarfs, these start at 50% the mass of the Sun, and can be as small as 7.5% the mass of the Sun. A red dwarf with only 10% the mass of the Sun will emit 1/10,000th the amount of energy given off by the Sun. Furthermore, red dwarfs lack radiative zones around their cores. Instead, the convective zone of the star comes right down to the core. This means that the core of the star is continuously mixed up, and the helium ash is carried away to prevent it from building up. Red dwarf stars use up all their hydrogen, not just the stuff in the core. It’s believed that the smaller red dwarf stars will live for 10 trillion years or more.
How long do stars last? The biggest stars last only millions, the medium-sized stars last billions, and the smallest stars can last trillions of years.
Answering the question, “How do stars die?” also depends on its mass. The most massive stars quickly exhaust their fuel supply and explode in core-collapse supernovae, some of the most energetic explosions in the universe. A supernova’s radiation can easily (if only briefly) outshine the rest of its host galaxy.
The remnant stellar core will form a neutron star or a black hole, depending on how much mass remains. If the core contains between 1.44 and 3 solar masses, that mass will crush into a volume just 10 to 15 miles wide before a quantum mechanical effect known as neutron degeneracy pressure prevents total collapse. The exact upper limit on a neutron star mass isn’t known, but around 3 solar masses, not even neutron degeneracy pressure can combat gravity’s inward crush, and the core collapses to form a black hole.
Average stars with up to 1.44 solar masses, such as the Sun, face only a slightly less exotic fate. As they run out of hydrogen to fuse in their cores, they swell into red giant stars before shedding their outer layers. The remnant left behind in these planetary nebulae is a white dwarf star. Like neutron stars, white dwarfs no longer fuse hydrogen into helium, instead depending on degeneracy pressure for support — this time, the electrons are degenerate, packed together and forced into higher energy states, rather than the neutrons.
(Wednesday, November 25th,2020)
“Astronomers Detect Millions of Signals From an Intelligent Civilization: Us”
Westerhout 5, the Soul Nebula
“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details”
Joe Rogan Experience episode 1347 selalu jadi podcast yang menarik buat aku.
Bukan karena Neil deGrasse Tyson seorang astrofisikawan, membicarakan black matter, teori relativitas, atau proyek ambisius teleskop raksasa di Mauna Kea (yang nantinya juga dibahas)
Tapi yang selalu membuat menarik adalah, dia datang mengenakan setelan lengkap dengan vest eksentrik bergambarkan “The Starry Night”.Lukisan karya Vincent Van Gogh yang tersohor itu.
Yang akhirnya setelan tersebut memancing pembicaraan untuk topik pembuka podcast kala itu. mengapa? bukan mengapa untuk menggunakan vest yang buat tampilannya jadi eyecatching, tapi mengapa lukisan tahun 80an itu so special.
Lanjut, Neil bercerita terkait sejarah dari “The Starry Night”, bahwa lukisan tersebut merupakan lukisan pemandangan menjelang dini hari kala itu, yang dilukis Van Gogh dari jendela asylum-nya.
“Coba amati bentuk-bentuk ombak di langit itu, apakah itu melukiskan tentang awan? Jika benar itu awan lalu bagaimana bentuk-bentuk lingkaran (yang kemungkinan besar adalah bintang) bisa terlihat jelas dari balik awan?” Yang secara logika harusnya cahaya dari bintang-bintang terhalangi.
Apakah lukisan tersebut sekedar imajinasi atau mimpi yang tidak nyata dalam kepala Van Gogh lalu dia lukiskan gambaran-gambaran tersebut di kanvas pada lain hari? Padahal Van Gogh melukisnya serambi menatap langit dini hari melalui jendelanya, di Perancis kala itu
Apa yang membuat lukisan tersebut menarik adalah, Neil percaya bahwa bauran degradasi warna dalam lukisan tersebut bukan sekedar dibuat untuk “mengindah-indahkan”, guritan guritan putih di luar bentuk bulan itu bukan hanya untuk melebih lebihkan. Tetapi lukisan tersebut memang refleksi bagaimana Van Gogh melihat langit kala itu. Begitu adanya. Tanpa ditambah-tambah. (Kalaupun ditambah mungkin sedikit).
Ini yang membuat Van Gogh menarik, dia berbeda, cerita dibalik dilukisnya lukisan tersebutlah yang membuat “The Starry Night” famously recognized.
Barangkali terdapat banyak cara bagaimana manusia menikmati sebuah bentuk lukisan, dan mungkin ini salah satunya. Mengamati seraya berpikir “how such a humankind could has that point of view”.
Pemikiran dia dalam mencerna suatu objek lah yang menarik. People enjoy how he descripted his mind to be what it is. Jika hanya sebuah gambar tentang pemandangan langit yang diinginkan, mungkin hasil potret kamera lah yang dipilih.
Terlepas dari bagaimana lukisan tersebut bisa menginspirasi Neil untuk menjadi seorang scientist, barangkali suatu karya jika diamati dalam-dalam bisa menjadi peta untuk menuju ke jalan berpikir si empunya.
Membayangkan bagaimana jika menjadi seorang Van Gogh, apakah realita terlihat seperti ini adanya, bagaimana ketika berada di tepian jalan, apakah kendaraan yang lalu lalang akan terlihat seperti biasanya? Lalu tengok ke atas, apakah langit biru dan awan putih hanya begitu adanya?
Lalu jika aku mengamati apa-apa yang terjadi sekitarku dalam-dalam, apakah aku mampu menemukan jawaban untuk judul di atas?