Kedas Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 subset or not or the otherway around. If we have to discuss(not prove) about it then what is the point in agreeing about it. It's all about understanding the same universe so it is obvious all related to each other.
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 then you say to me you learn all Chemistry in your Physics lessons, then I may consider it to be a subset of it, untill then, I shall continue with my current stance, it`s an overlap only
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 All the chemistry I learnt at uni was physics, and obviously so. Things like the Schroedinger Wave Equation
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I can`t comment on the latter, I don`t even know what it means. the first part of your sentence I can comment on. "All the chemistry I learnt at uni was physics" that`s fine, and I would have expected as much, as that is where the "Overlap" I spoke of comes in, SURE you will need too know a little chem but you didn`t learn ALL Chemistry otherwise you`de have been doin Chem and not Physics Q.E.D
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I wasn't taking physics though, except as a module.
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 actualy, that in itself isn`t a bad anaolgy, it was "Just a module" and that`s how it is with ALL feilds of the SET called Science it`s all modular, and many shares an overlap, don`t get me wrong I CAN see where you`re coming from 100%, but when expressed in term of chem or physics or biology etc... it has to remain as such modules, in order to give a definitive answer to post #1
Radical Edward Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :then you say to me you learn all Chemistry in your Physics lessons, then I may consider it to be a subset of it, untill then, I shall continue with my current stance, it`s an overlap only you don't have to learn all of chemistry in physics for chemistry to be a subset. For example. I started doing physics, where I learned a bit of optics. now I have specialised in optics, but optics is still physics, just a subset of it - you cannot say that physics is a subset of optics, since physics includes mechanics too, for example. The same is true for chemistry.
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :actualy, that in itself isn`t a bad anaolgy, it was "Just a module" and that`s how it is with ALL feilds of the SET called Science it`s all modular, and many shares an overlap, don`t get me wrong I CAN see where you`re coming from 100%, but when expressed in term of chem or physics or biology etc... it has to remain as such modules, in order to give a definitive answer to post #1 Did you see that my post was a link? <3 nodrog <3 btw
Radical Edward Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : Did you see that my post was a link? by the way, I think Gordon Ross is lovely. yeah, but it is not low quality enough to be 1337. you actually used shapes and proper text. nice to see you appreciate Gordon at last. (Gordon Freeman. In the flesh.)
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 "by the way, I think Gordon Ross is lovely" Whut!?
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 regards the link, no it didn`t show till after you mentioned it, I`m only running win 98 on a P2 350mhz, it`s not all that great at showing all the stuff it should or rather COULD with a better OS, that parts my fault, lack of cash precludes a better puter sadly
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : <3 nodrog <3 btw Oh dear god no.
Neurocomp2003 Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 its a hierarchy physics-> chemistry->molecular chemistry->cellular biology ->animal/plant biology->psychology->society->ecology ->intelligence physics studies at very very small scales chemistry studies at small scales in the past both grew into their own but to make concrete theories first you need physics to explain models of chemistry but you also need observations from chemistry to explore new found things in chemistry
Sayonara Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Why would you put ecology after psychology and society?
Radical Edward Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : Oh dear god no. Actually, I confess that I do too. really Sayo? I would never have imagined it. ok, I will stop now
JaKiri Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Since when was cosmology 'very very small scales'?
Radical Edward Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # :Since when was cosmology 'very very small scales'? since last thursday. Didn't you get the memo?
JaKiri Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Radical Edward said in post # : since last thursday. Didn't you get the memo? My monitor shows a resistance to yellow sticky labels.
JaKiri Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # :Probably needs a clean It is covered in ketchup. ps. Appreciate my ramblings?
Sayonara Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # :AW Yeah, I'll have to reply to that later. Tbh a lot of stuff like SPS might need to be reworked anyway for AW:FE. I still want to keep away from any kind of currency or resource movement though. ANyway, this is all a bit :offtopic:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now