thedarkshade

We write it a bit different:[math]U=IR[/math] .. and by the way Ohms law is [math]R=\frac{U}{I}[/math] and from that you derive what you have written!

I thought of that, but that would only rise more hate in her for me, so I guess I'll just wait and see what happens with my marks! It's called Cambridge College (not the real one)!

There was a similar thread here several weeks ago. The value was extraordinary! That really shows the absence of rationalism and especially when living in the century of science!

I don't know much about flies (why should I??) but I'd go with number 2 here. Because of that flies usually appear at my home.

You mean like there's something that carries the information of how a snowflake is formed? Not really! The snowflake production happens by going through a series of processes in specific conditions. Aaah, so this is what you you mean. Like there might me something that informs in the production of a snowflake (e.g.) like the RNAi informs ribosomes what proteins to make. Well, I don't know! But probably not! I mean, in protein synthesis RNAi tells exactly what aminoacids should be bonded together, how many of them etc., but on the other side when a snowflake is produced there really isn't really anything 'telling' to decrease the temperature so the snowflake can be made. The production happens only due to being in the right conditions for that action to take place!

And I remember getting a HazMat for talking about bomb-making:doh:

I've never really had problems like this, but sometimes I really have reasons to go insane (like today)! One of the classes I most hate is romantic literature. If there is anything in the whole world I would like to get rid of, is this damn fu(*ing subject. I don't know why I have to take it though. So I was having this class of literature today, and our professor decided to move on to some new books and unfortunately only few of us had those books. I sit in a desk with two other students and one of them had the book. The professor told us the read what we had to, and in about 20 minutes to explain it! Doll, but nothing hard really! She (Prof..) was really nervous, probably problems at home, and all the time she was screaming and criticizing! While reading that lesson, there was something I didn't really understand so I was asking my other friend to explain that to me and there she came, she caught us talking and threw us both out of the class. But not only that, she broke our behavioral mark, gave us some extra homework and put as a 1 (1 is the worst mark we get here). Now how is that supposed to happen???? OK, we were talking, which was about the subject of the class, and is that a reason to get kicked out of the class? But let's say that is. Is that a reason to get a 1??? Damn man, I was so nervous. How could this happen at a modern college where the educational system is thought to be ultra-modern? I really really hope I'm not going to do anything stupid, but things like this really piss me off man! Is there any advice of what should I do? Keep reading like a moron (which I don't intend to) or ask for apology for not doing anything? LITERATURE SUCKS MAN!!!!!

Alphas are helium nuclei, so they have mass, hence NO c for them!

Well that then would not be problem at all since no senses to measure means not sensing it at all:D! Having watched all those string theory lectures and series, this wouldn't really surprise me!

Or simply clean up the salts and all what's in there so you can get only water!

OK Flurgenspurg, so what exactly did you hear, that you call it mind power, because there are many ways to 'send yourself to heaven'?!

We have the definitions according to which we can do all the science, but there is nothing that reveals the true nature of time. Time is not physical, what kind of a question is that? You can touch it, see it, hold or anything that you can do with anything physical (objective). That is something that we have created for our practical uses! There is no full understanding of time, but this does not prevent us doing all the science correct despite the level of understand of time that we have now! You might be right here, but seconds and nanoseconds and whatever else about time are working good so far, so why not keep on with them! If you literally mean "see", then you got to know that physical perception and perception in general cannot provide a good understanding of the world! So you want me to lie? This is what we got so far! You can't really experiment or observe something that belong to subjective, and this makes things complicated!

All right then, you could just stop breathing!

Isn't suicide counted here?

edit: just trying to keep the thread alive

No no I meant distilled instead of boiled, as the procedure is similar!

You mean distilled? I know you're a newbie but please be more specific...

Well, they seem to be taking not so good decisions Oh, like they did with Milosevic?!

Not really! The information is not physical itself, but the source of information is! I mean, if you start to study the molecular structure of any substance, you find really find any information 'stored' there, you get the information about that specific substance by the characteristics it has, the interactions it does, the way it behaves in different conditions. There is no 'smart center' in the molecular structure which would contain all the informations about that specific substance. It is the features that it has, that make you possible to get informations about it. An information is a data, an important of a non-important one. You can derive informations for literally everything, by just observing, experimenting, and studying it. And yeah, structure would be a nice place to start. Find out how it is, what it is and then move to how it interacts! Cheers!

Actually there are a lot of definitions of what time is (most of them from philosophers), but unfortunately the issues has not yet been brightened enough to have a deeper understanding of it despite the numerous attempts of human mind during the history. ========== There is a lot of mystery related to time, so the subject has usually been left behind and considered metaphysical, something that is beyond out physical perception and hence we cannot fully understand it, and perhaps it is like that. But this is not a good reason to stop thinking about time, because the subject is left behind not due to being considered as metaphysical, but due to very little progress done in the field of understanding time. In philosophy there are several point of views which each in their way try to explain time, and some of the impossible paradoxes related with the issue, but yet we are quite far from completely grasping it. What I personally like is the way St. Augustin talks about time and his explanation of what time is. He considers time as a mind dimension, and the beauty of it stand on not violating some of the main philosophical principles and creates a perfect relation between different philosophies. First, considering time as a mind dimension completely fits with the idea of time belonging to idealist subjectivism. If we are not there to think of time, time itself wouldn't exist. It cannot exit independent from the observer (in a metaphorical meaning). The observer thinks of time, hence it must be a mind dimension. Augustin said that "if time weren't a mind dimension then how would we remember the past which is in out memory, feel the present due to our perceptions, and think of future". Then also saying time is a mind dimension perfectly fits the cartesian philosphy "I think, therefore I am" and Kant's philosophy of time being a priori form of sensualism! What about the experiments with accelerated radioactive particles? Their radioactive decay slows down by an exactly predicted value due to time dilation. You can believe what you want, but your own beliefs do not make a general true!

It's not man made, put it better and you get man depended. Time belongs to subjective idealism, which mean it cannot exist apart from the subject (which are we)!

Probably we all do, but they're not really pure new colors, just different nuances!

First, when molecules move from a place with higher concentration to a place with lower concentration through a membrane that's called osmosis (a kind of diffusion). The case of being able to move or not being able to move through membrane, depends on the permeability of the membranes pores. e.g. The pores of our cell's membrane can let in molecules with molar mass up to 100g/mol. Now if you know the permeability of the pores, and the molar mass of the substance tending to go through the pores, then you can conclude if they are able or not to move through the membrane! As for the other questions, I'll have to do the experiments myself so I could possibly help you CC, but due to my limited leisure time, I think I really won't be able to! Cheers!

Sinsay, I really don't understand this second part. Could you please explain it and this time use the grammatical rules please!

[math]x^4 +1[/math] is the same as [math]({x^2})^2 + 1^2[/math] and a more general formula would be [math]a^2 + b^2=(a \pm b)^2 \mp 2ab[/math]!