/backslash/

These are very different areas of biology. To explain the connections between them to you would require explaining an enormous amount of organic chemistry and microbiology.

Assuming that the ball reflects a wavelength of 470 nanometres, assuming that it is 100% spherical, these are what you have to solve to answer the question. 470 = 100% 470 < 100% 470 > 100% Sadly, these equations/inequalities are completely impossible to solve. The two values are of different data types, and this question is scientifically invalid. Looking at it from a logical standpoint, this question is unanswerable. Although the sphericaly of the object could potentially have a TRUE/FALSE answer, (from 0% to 100%) or a more true/less true answer, the color of the object is purely qualitative and cannot be classified as more true/less true. So the answer is: ERROR

I think that most problems in government occur when either the people do not know what they need or their ruler does not care what they need.

Too bad I'm only up to precalc.

K. Thanks.

Sounds like agreat idea. I'll compile thes into a Pages doc.

You will probably have to convert it into a graph able form first, so that you can put it into graphing calculator.

Could I start a Q&A thread where people can post scientific questions? It seems that a great number of threads are devoted to very simple inquiries.

The points you have made make no sense. Therefore, it is very difficult to respond to them. Could you be more clear, perhaps, and use references like you're supposed to?

All research is important to some degree. If we did not pursue an idea just because we did not think it was important enough, we would not make nearly as much scientific progress.

I'm sorry, but this is really not a better explanation at all.

I'm not sure if this is the right process, but however you got your conclusion, you hit the nail on the head.

Heating an object does not increase its mass, it increases its volume. On a molecular level, the particles are vibrating faster and faster, bumping into each other more and thereby increasing their net movement away from each other. Wikipedia is helpful.

Okay. A. By saying that we are not only chemical reactions but the result of these chemical reactions, you are only stating the obvious. I believe that this was already assumed by most people on this thread. Please keep God's body out of this. I believe in God too, but this is a biology thread. If you want to talk about God, there is a religion category. B. Your experience and wisdom, as you put it, are complex patterns of neurons firing electrochemical impulses back and forth to each other. So is your imagination. If these chemical impulses were not occurring in you right now, you would be dead. C. The sentence, "my chemical reactions" (which is not actually a sentence), does not mean"'chemical reaction's chemical reactions". We are not a single chemical reaction, nor do we consist entirely of the action of chemicals forming/breaking ionic bonds etc. A more accurate literal translation of "my chemical reactions" would be "a complex sequence of organic molecules' chemical reactions". D. The bonding of chemicals is not an "abstract, flimsy concept". It is a process firmly grounded in reality and proved by a nearly uncountable number of highly accurate scientific experiments. If any concept is "flimsy and incomprehensible", it is yours. Please, s1eep. If you are going to post your own unproved and contradictory ideas, do it in the Speculations category. Don't confuse this guy, who is asking some fair and legitimate questions for which there are already well-established answers.

Ok... If such an algorithm is possible, then what does it consist of? How do we make it work?