Simple Question Can You Take Earth Science 12 If You Haven

What is the easiest science course I can take to earn an A in college if I dislike science?

I was a CS major but I had to take a qualitative natural science course as a breadth requirement. I selected Astronomy and really liked it, mainly because of the pretty slides of astronomical and atmospheric phenomena.My run down of the courses, I've had Physics, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, and Atronomy:Biology: You have to deal with icky stuff in labs but it's probably the most day-to-day relevant basic science. You can't run away from living things and some of them are beautiful or otherwise interesting.Chemistry: At the freshman level you end up doing a lot of, mostly simple, algebra. There's a whiff of danger but most of the compounds you deal with are actually pretty tame. No pretty pictures and little day to day relevance for most people. It did make me appreciate how imprecise we often are when cooking and how much deliberate mystification is used by manufactures of household chemicals.Physics: I took the first course in the major sequence. It is essentially math puzzles at that level. Fun if you like that sort of thing. Most mundane situations are too complex for basic physics to be useful but the conservation of energy and momentum are helpful in thinking about mechanical systems.Earth sciences: You get to look at a lot of pretty rocks and fossils. I forget a lot of this especially things about silicic versus mafic minerals. Paleontology courses are interesting if you like to think about alien planets because earth was one in the past. Minerology is good if you like to see pretty rocks and enjoy keying out specimens to identify them.Astronomy: No lab sections, pretty pictures, and awe inspiring pressures, temperatures, and lengths of time. If you've ever been fascinated by the power of H-bombs, astronomy is where you find things so powerful that beside them H-bombs are nothing.However, I had to write a paper defending or debunking astrology, which might be a turn off for some people. Also, unlike with the other classes which deal with things that you can't fully ignore, if you spend your evenings inside you will seldom notice the stars. Of course, sometimes the sky intrudes on us in messy ways but meteor strikes are rare and a damaging gamma ray burst has never happened in all of earth's history as far as we know.

Why is it impossible for us to reach the center of the Earth?

The core of the Earth is a very hostile environment and you want to do like these guys:Unfortunately, we do not remotely possess the technology to reach the core like they do in movie (the movie is also famous for having physics realism way beyond Wile E. Coyote physics. Here is a physics review of The Core XP).The temperature is estimated to 6000C (Earth's Core 1,000 Degrees Hotter Than Expected) . This is several 1000 Celsius more than the melting point of any known material (I believe slightly over 4000C is the current record). Wolfram carbide is commonly used in drilling, but it already melts away at 2870C. Any craft or drill would melt away before reaching the core.Lets say we invented some incredible clever cooling system or sci-fi material that could withstand the heat what else could stop us? Pressure!The maximum pressure a craft or drill would experience is around 350 Gigapascal. That is an insane amount of pressure, something like a million elephants (here is a delightful paper about the foot pressure of elephants Foot pressure distributions during walking in African elephants (Loxodonta africana)).I wouldn’t call it impossible to go to the center of Earth, but very very difficult; unless we invent some unobtainium.

Did you manage to convince any Flat Earther that the flat earth theory doesn't hold water? If so, what arguments did you put forward in this process?

Thanks for the A2A.I’m not sure if I’ve convinced anybody because flat-Earther’s have made up their minds and are generally not open to new ideas, but here’s just three arguments where flat-Earth ‘science’ has failed to come up with a plausible counter argument.We’ve all seen a sharp horizon, right? Well you would never see a sharp horizon on a flat earth! The disappearing-point would only be limited by the transparency of the atmosphere, so distant objects would just be increasingly diffuse.They cannot explain why in the southern hemisphere, the night sky rotates the opposite way to the northern hemisphere.The ‘flattened’ map of the world distorts shapes and distances of the continents south of the equator, so are provably wrong. Australia for example is around 2,000 miles north to south, and around 2,500 miles west to east, but the FE map shows it distorted to around 2,500 miles x 500 miles. It’s no wonder that a lot of flat-Earthers think that Australia is a hoax!Additionally, I confirm the Earth’s sphericity to my satisfaction every week.I’m lucky enough to live in Andalucia in Spain. When I’m down on the coast to do our weekly shopping, it’s impossible not to notice the sea… the Mediterranean. And looking south (towards Morocco in Africa), I see only open horizons.After the shopping, I drive north to go home, and as I climb into the hills towards my house nearly 1,800 feet above sea-level, I can look back over the Mediterranean and start seeing the Rif Mountains in Morocco become more exposed as I gain height.Morocco is more than a hundred miles away, and the Rif mountains are more than 5,000 feet high. I couldn’t see them at sea-level, but I can see them at 1,800 feet so there’s all the proof I need.And before anyone says ‘refraction’, I’d point out that the atmosphere is denser at sea level so the effect of refraction should be greater there.