joshuam168

i dont see why it would affect it. if its nutrient agar it shouldnt have any acverse effects. freezing could disrupt some of the chemicals in more specialized agar....if you bought the agar i'd consult with manufacturer.

i dont recall throwing a tantrum....hmm i must be mistaken about myself....my bad. and i argue this because he doesnt realize the importance of using norms....which all of the established medical sciences seem to use.....hmmm my bad sorry for trying not to let those who dont know better be misled....for wat is science but to mislead others eh? i dont believe i said that specifically.....my comment allowed for variables...and i havnt been proven wrong about the psychological theory, i have never experienced this before with vodka, so therefore there must be some impactable degree of psychology associated with this phenomenon.

once again wording fails me...sorry. i meant refraction doesnt imply the bending of light completely around a body does it? i know refraction refers to a certain degree of bending....but does it refer to as high a degree as mentioned in the first link provided by Inow?

also you cannot make the assumption that there is only one kind of extreme.....in any case "extremes" dont matter.....the fact is that those "extremes" are factored into the average.....did you hear that.....once again the "extremes" are already included in the average! therefore your argument of "extremes" is moot and has no validity. i dont believe in my last post that i said u said they should never be used. but again norms should ALWAYS be used....they provide a basis with which too build a diagnose.....tho i will say noone should be making diagnoses on an online science forum...lol

norms should always be used! thats why they were developed! even though the issue may be more complex norms are used to help rule out incorrect thinking and to help build ideas. if we didnt have these norms it would be incredibly hard to come anywhere near an answer for any medival problem! aas for the balancing out.....there may not be enough of both extremes to balance eachother out. but stil these extremes would be factored into the average....henceforth why its called an AVERAGE. my point was merely that even tho there may be these high metabolism people there would also be low metabolism people.....your argument on that point therefore makes no valid contribution on this point.

no they are not very easily skewed by extremes.....thats why they are taken from large numbers of people, so that a few extremes factor in nicely to make the average. and if you think about it for those people who have an extremely high metabolism for alcohol there are going to be those with an extremely low metabolism for alcohol...which help to balance out this "extremeness". if, as you two are implying, that a norm should not be used in this case, then it would follow that you should never really use norms on an individual....hmmm curse those incredibly stupid people for wasting their time on coming up with these norms.....and also for stupidly using them on single individuals...imagine the nerve....

oooh...thats kooool. i didnt know they could do that.....but is it possible to have a substance cover your body and refract it? refraction doesnt imply the same thing as does bending light correct?

i dont know how many of you ever saw that show called the invisible man, im talking about the new....if there there is an older one...? but the idea is that he contains an organ inside his body that secretes a substance called "quicksilver" over his body. now this refracts light in such a way that it makes so that human don't see him, i.e. invisibility. im not asking about the possibiity if have the organ, or to debate the name....i want to know if its scientifically possible for light to refracted in a way that would cause invisibility...and if so is it remotely within possibility of our current technological state?

yes that makes sense....never use accepted norms....guess the doctors and the scientists are wrong. sorry my bad

a point does have length and depth. if it did not have such things how would we measure it? it wouldnt exist according to our conception of existence. we can only measure using such dimensions therefore if it has none of those it doesnt exist. so therefore this "point" u speak of is theoretical and not factual.

i was stating such as an average....on average a good nights sleep does rid your body of any significant amount of alcohol in your blood. as in all medical science i was the accepted norms as a basis for my conjecture.

yea i know that the nerve is powered by ATP...Adenosine Triphosphate.....i couldnt think of the rite wording for that. in a way it sort of "powers" the nerves in that it produces the electrical potential needed for nerve cell conduction...i do apologize for my improper wording though....Inow is correct.

well low levels of K cause memory loss, and if you have REALLY low levels of K you wont be able to remember practically anything.....K rich foods include watermelon and bananas well low levels of K cause memory loss, and if you have REALLY low levels of K you wont be able to remember practically anything.....K rich foods include watermelon and bananas. and low K levels could possibly induce numbness as K is one of the two elements in a sodium potassium pump.....basically thats wat powers your nerves.

umm...no. unless u were up drinking until 3 A.M. and then got up at 6 A.M., your not going to stil have ethanol on your breath. after roughly a night of sleep, again depending how much sleep you've had, the alcohol is going to be gone, the tasting of vodka is psychological. especially if its really cheap nasty vodka, i've had that happen with other alcohol, wen i've drank way too much the night before and it was nasty. but i've never tasted vodka in my drinks the next day before. but its definitely not "left over" ethanol.

ya i figured it out...i had a boute of UBER stupidity last nite. i figured it out like a lil bit after i posted:P

ok wth is the answer to #3? i cannot figure it out.....spaceship motor...wth is that??!!

could u give me a link to this website where u found the plans?

ah yes...the tiresome attempt at trying to make one look foolish. very childish of you ben. you see i could easily spell it right if i wanted to, i'm just used to texting and IM'ing plus i was saying nothing scientific so therefore no reason for spelling correctly. and, query, if you were a real scientist would you not be encouraging the furthering of knowledge by college courses rather than trying to discourage by making snide remarks? hmm...confusing.... in any case hate not on those you have not met and who are not hating on you.

sorry i be quite the amateur. im going to be taking sum college courses on this, but i have no formal education. all i know is wat ive learned from reading on my own. so y do scientists approximate that and say that mass is conserved? i thot u werent supposed to approximate like that? wouldnt it mess up more complex equations, or do they factor that in?

can u give me a link or some such proof for this?

dude law of conservation of mass is simple chemistry. i could go and quote it to you out of my chemistry book if you would like.

i have to say farsight.....with your views on black hole physics. it is true that science has proven c to be the fastest speed. but then again has not science said that these same laws do not apply once a black hole is added to the equation. for science has said that space time is warped in a black hole. furthermore as far as i understand a black hole is not an actual hole, as you earlier stated it was, but is in actuality a warping of space time.....the name black hole being a misnomer. id like to hear both Ben's and Faraights views on this.....as im not actually a scientist merely an amatuer interested greatly in learning more.

First off...big bang believer? how dare you? We speak of energy in this thread, such as the massive amounts required. how much energy do u think it would take to force the universe to break down implode an then explode again? It would be a retardedly stupid amount of energy that would turn all bonds into energy. therefore we would have no matter in this universe.

my question is this. how can any scientist seriously consider this theory to be true? it contradicts the very fundamentals of physics, i.e. the laws of conservation of energy and matter. we know these laws to be true so how could sumone even try to contradict these, as did hawkings?