Learning Science!

("Belgium isotope" "Achievement hunter" "King of badcalls" "File handler" "Github complainer") #1
This thread is made for teaching several fields in science. For example, it could begin with teaching chemistry, which actually is the one I’ll start with. We’ll cover several aspects of each of those fields, and then go on with another field. For instance, the next one will be physics. We can also cover mathematics, but it would be a bit too long explaining algebra and functions, especially to kids (kids don’t understand abstract notions). So this thread is for adolescents and older people. So, I said I’m starting with chemistry. I’ll teach what I know, but I haven’t learnt every notion (such as the four quantum numbers, redox reactions, etc.), so it would be cool if someone who knows those things (maybe @tjwhale ) could help me with it (“teaching me”) and talk about it in the thread. So, for now, here’s a list of things I’ll cover in chemistry :
  1. Basics
  2. Gas
  3. Energy
  4. Reaction speed
  5. Equilibrium

I’m writing the basics tomorrow.

("Belgium isotope" "Achievement hunter" "King of badcalls" "File handler" "Github complainer") #2
Hello everybody ! Today, we will start with the basics of chemistry. Here’s the list of the notions we will cover in the basics :
  1. Atoms and their representations through history
  2. Periodic table
  3. Difference between elements, mixtures and compounds
  4. Molecules
  5. Concentration
  6. Mole
  7. Matter transformations
There’s another thing I could cover, which is scientific methodology (including the notion of uncertainty). However, I don’t know if I should cover that since it is primarily used rather in experimentation than theory. Thus, @tjwhale , could you tell me if scientific methodology would be useful in Thrive and if there’s other notions I should cover in the basics ? Thank you ! I’ll start as soon as possible.

(The Third Duke of Silly) #3

This smells like GCSE.
I do not like the smell of GCSE.
Smells like stress.

("Belgium isotope" "Achievement hunter" "King of badcalls" "File handler" "Github complainer") #4

Are you british, sir Biologicah ?

(tjwhale) #5

I’m not a big expert in a lot of this stuff. I think the most simple way to understand the scientific method is that it’s a two step process. First you think of a hypothesis and then you try as hard as you can to disprove it. The more you fail to disprove it the stronger it becomes, so it can be upgraded to a Theory or a Law. In Thrive there’s a few place this happens

  1. When you play the game, or any game, you are sort of doing this. You think “maybe I need the yellow cloud to reproduce” and then you test that out, trying to reproduce using it and maybe trying to avoid it to see if you really need it. The scientific method is really just a formal version of trial and error which you use when you learn anything.

  2. When designing the game we make a lot of hypotheses like “the pilus will make combat more fun” and then we go and test that and see if it’s true. So far it’s only a hypothesis but when we add it we’ll start getting data to back up whether it is more fun or not. Just looking at our own experiences isn’t enough, we have to see feedback from a lot of different sources, like these forums, letsplays etc.

  3. One crazy idea I had for the late space stage is to have several different branches science could take. Right now we don’t know what Dark Matter is, for example. So maybe in the game there could be 4 different explanations which lead to different possible technologies. As the player you have to commit scientific resources to unraveling these possibilities. Maybe that’s nuts but is an example of using the scientific method while playing.

Hope that’s helpful :slight_smile:

("Belgium isotope" "Achievement hunter" "King of badcalls" "File handler" "Github complainer") #6

In fact, by scientific methodology, I meant more about uncertainty and significant figures. Whatever let’s start by the different atomic model through history.

1.1 : Atoms and their representations through history

A long time ago, in Ancient Greece, many philosophers were arguing about the constitution of matter. The most two important ones were of Aristotle (-384 to -322) and of Democritus (-460 to -370). Aristotle thought that matter was composed of four elements : fire, earth, water and air. Depending on the properties of an object, that object could be made of one or many of these elements. See this link for clarification : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Five_elements . On the other hand, Democritus thought that matter was composed of tiny and undividable particles called “atoms”. However, Aristotle’s theory, even though not true, was more popular than Democritus’, for there was no way any of these men could prove their theory.

A. Dalton’s atomic model

Before I start, I have to tell you about a very important, yet basic law in chemistry (Antoine de Lavoisier’s law of matter conservation) : matter cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed. For instance, if water isn’t present at the beginning of a chemical reaction, it can’t appear at the end of the reaction. Remember this law, whatever let’s continue. Chemistry was a very popular science in 18th century and many experiments and laws were established in that same century. That’s when, in 1808, an english scientific and professor named John Dalton (1766 to 1844) established a theory based on those laws and on Democritus’ idea (matter is composed of atoms). Here’s Dalton’s theory :
  • Matter is composed of very small and chemically undividable particles called “atoms”.
  • All atoms of a same element have the same properties such as mass, size and else.
  • All atoms that are of different elements don’t have the same properties.
  • Atoms can be bound together to form chemical compounds depending on certain proportions.
  • Chemical reactions produce new compounds but cannot create or destroy elements.

    John Dalton thought that atoms look like spheres that are undividable and solid.
    B. Thomson’s atomic model

It is recommended that you watch this video from at least at 0:40 because the beginning is a spoiler for my text.

In 1897, Joseph John Thomson, an english physicist, was studying cathode rays and discovered another particle : the electron. He supposed that electrons were negatively charged particles that were part of the atom and that could easily be unbound from it to go on their separate ways, which meant that atoms couldn’t be undividable.

Here, you can see Thomson’s atomic model represented by a huge positively charged particle covered by tiny negatively charged ones.
Here is a funny way to represent this model. You can imagine as a muffin filled with raisins.
C. Rutherford’s atomic model
In the 1900s, scientists have discovered that in radioactive rays are distinguished by three kinds of rays (omg, hl3 confirmed) : alpha rays (positive), beta rays (negative) and gamma rays (electrically neutral). In 1911, Ernest Rutherford, a new-zealandish physicist, was trying to find the location of electrons inside the atom. Thus, he decided to shoot an alpha beam at a thin sheet of gold and thought that it would cross it and that only some rays would slightly be deviated. Nonetheless, some rays were entirely reflected and he concluded that, considering that alpha particles are positively charged and that they were repulsed, that the positive charge of the atom comes from one smaller particle : the proton. The proton is a tiny positively charged particle that constitutes the atom’s nucleus. Also, because the atom is electrically neutral, Rutherford supposed that there were as many electrons as protons.

Here is a simplified image of the experiment.

Here is an image illustrating Rutherford’s atomic model.

D. Rutherford and Bohr’s atomic model
E. Simplified atomic model
F. Lewis’ notation

(tjwhale) #7

Nice :slight_smile:

I think, as water is a molecule rather than an element, it can be created or destroyed in reactions. If you burn hydrogen then it can bind with the oxygen in the air to make water.

However I think the idea holds true with hydrogen or oxygen, neither of these can be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

("Belgium isotope" "Achievement hunter" "King of badcalls" "File handler" "Github complainer") #8
The only problem is that some people might not know what’s the difference between an atom and a molecule. So, while I’m explaining what is an atom, I don’t make the difference between an atom and a molecule , so that those people can understand what I’m saying.

Edit :


Maybe you should write explicitly about that. I feel like it would be very beneficial for people to know what the difference is.

("Belgium isotope" "Achievement hunter" "King of badcalls" "File handler" "Github complainer") #10
Hey guys! There’s an update in my course! Finally, yes! Sorry for the time I was gone. I was depressed for a moment and I went completing games and unlocking all of their achievements (what a great sense of priority). Sorry guys. Now, I got back to work!