Quake3World

Got confirmation of my last mark for my last exam from college, which was the very last thing I had to do to finish up my study. The 22nd of February there's a "ceremony" at college where I can get my papers. Then I can finally say fuck off to school and start working full-time (instead of 32 hours a week)

LOL, we have 9 on my course, ahh the wonders of Baking Science.

Congrats btw.

GG Eraser. Another year or two and I'll be out for good, too. Well, at least until I decide to get my Master's.

I was supposed to get my Masters back in 2000, but I never finished my final thesis. Maybe I'll get around to doing that some day.

Eraser, is that in computer science?

Grudge wrote:I was supposed to get my Masters back in 2000, but I never finished my final thesis. Maybe I'll get around to doing that some day.

Eraser, is that in computer science?

I don't even know how the hell that works. So you don't have to enroll yourself in a set timeframe for a Masters? You can come and go (at least with the thesis) at will?

Grudge wrote:Eraser, is that in computer science?

Yep. Field of software engineering mostly. Not that I've learned anything there, but oh well, that piece of paper is worth a well paying carreer I guess

Well yes, basically. I have taken all the classes (three and a half years). I just need to re-enroll for one (the final) semester and write my paper.

Ohes. I see.

my brother will get his Masters in (Astro)-Physics in august. then he's up for 4 years of more researching fun to get his PhD, followed by 2 years of post-doc. followed by 5 years of "fieldwork" to make Professor

gotta admire the discipline - i wouldve given up after just hearing how much time it takes

Your brother is studying Astrophysics? I'm surprised.

Congratulations

Massive Quasars wrote:Your brother is studying Astrophysics? I'm surprised.

whys that sir

MKJ wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:Your brother is studying Astrophysics? I'm surprised.

whys that sir

I'm not implying anything...

It's just relatively rare to come across someone studying that.

way to go man .. call me when your rich .. we will be best freinds.

truth. this hobo does this for fun even - he enjoys studying 16hrs a day for 15+ years

he also had quite the elaborate argument about how the current spacethread on these boards totally miss the point of the original article

Then let him post. :icon30:

I know that space thread was totally derailed.

he posted here a couple of times a year or 2 ago, when kracus had his random thought threads every 2 days.
he killed them all off with something kracus would never get - background research, abstract thinking and logic

i can post his thingy though.. just gimme a minute to translate

[edit] he stopped posting cause kracus would get angry and start flaming all round btw, something one doesnt want when debating science [/edit]

MKJ wrote:he posted here a couple of times a year or 2 ago, when kracus had his random thought threads every 2 days.
he killed them all off with something kracus would never get - background research, abstract thinking and logic

i can post his thingy though.. just gimme a minute to translate

[edit] he stopped posting cause kracus would get angry and start flaming all round btw, something one doesnt want when debating science [/edit]

Kracus is a dumbass, it's too bad he left.

I'd like to read this thingy you speak of.

here goes
ignore spelling errors and grammarmistakes, i translated it in a hurry



"The shape" shouldnt be taken literally. A simple way of putting it is;
If one would draw two parallel lines on a sheet of paper, those two lines would never meet. The "shape" of the sheet of paper is therefore called "Eculidian" (dispite the actual shape of the sheet, be it square, triangular or anything else for that matter). This sounds more than logical - parallel does mean the two would never meet. However, the opposite is also possible.
If one would draw two lines parallel on let's say the Earth, those lines WOULD meet (at the north and south poles, most likely). The "shape" of the Earth is therefore called "spherical". (the fact that the earth actually *is* a sphere is not important)
The mathimatical name of the shape of the surface (read: the way the two lines would behave) is "the metric". When one speaks of "the shape" of the universe, one means "the metric of the universe". Now, obviously it would be impossible to draw 2 lines through the universe to see if they would meet or not. And obviously, one doesn't draw lines on any surface (abstract or concrete) to see what it's metric is. Instead, they use Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: the metric depends on the amount of energy and mass in said object (universe in this case). Using this theory, one finds out that the universe has a Euclidian metric - ergo, the "shape" of the universe makes it so that parallel lines never meet, comparible to the aforementioned sheet of paper.
Simply put - the universe's shape is not important - it's the metric that is, and that's flat as flat can be.

that actually made sense.

Thank you MKJ.

:icon14:

Bachelors... dont they make that soup that you can make in a cup? With croutons...

Congrats man