AtomicMX

hahahahaha no no no you are misunderstanding everything, really excuse my bad english, i'll rephrase everything here again. ok? i don't want to talk too much about this topic, because of the actual debate.

are you(all) really intrested? i'd like to talk about it when finishing the debate with sayonara. so i can give complete and exhaustive answers. :S because seems that no ones understands what i say at once... :S is my english that bad?

... dunno, may be taken bad.... but... if the idea is make sci-fi more real and more fullfiller... then... i think is a good idea.

:S.... i'd say that... what does memorizing stuff has to be with being smart.... there is a complete difference between intelligence and knowledge.... and about the homework... do it. teachers spect you yo. lol

it looks like quarz and mercury salts to me..

jajajajajaa....... i'll explain later...

Uniform inercial movement used as reference mark respect the others movements of the universe, to be able to compare these between themselves mathematically. I got a very very little problem with this concept. The time is relative, but which is the original time, and i was talking about traveling to the time, but thinking it on another way, if the time of the whole universe talking about general movements, and moving backwards (for atoms and stuff) are also a movement, we would se it travel thru time thinking in our time, but relative to the whole universe time, the time is directional nor relative.

But yes, there are many people still using pascal (only for learning as far as i know)

I did never liked pascal... :S cause is to structured and too easy at the same time.... that why i better liked C, everything mixed =).

Well set that up in the debate ok?

the guy and things inside the machine.... but actually i have an hypothesis about the big bang + einsteins universe theory... just a complementation. i´´ll talk about that later.

And are still trying and they will get it one day.... i myself will research in those areas in a distant future.. there should be a way.

BTW More than math are statistics... and probability. and much chemistry.. and biologist notes btw. and about the life definition, i started that thread by the cause you said, but actually there is a life common life definition. All this troubles of conceptuality come from the subjectivity of biology.

i will...

Like which ones?

Yes i know that, but he was a WWII scientist, and the topic was barely new, now we can see the thing more accurately, i really think is posible. I haven´t read to much about einsteins unfinished theories, but i still think is not impossible, and yes i retract, its a hard way yet. is anyone has links for those unfinished einsteins work and formulas, please let me know.

Means, biology is not constant, is not accurate, and is not more than taking notes, and well is subjective because biology can be managed from very many point of view, and in physics for example. as physics law will be always the same liking it or not. I did started the other one first (thread), i did this one in order to see which one you consider the life definition is. And yes you can sayonara, actually i did already. It proves biology is not a science. and i´ve thinked it much hard. If you disagree take one of my challenges and prove it the science way.

Mac were happy hippies loved marihuana....

i´ll explain that in the debate... but i can give you this in advance "objectivity and theories"

Yeah, you could say that i am weird, but certainly i am not, perhaps in the debate will come to light what i am refering to. And there is a phrase that you may take it as the principle of what i mean. says: "Everything can be calculated, because all systems are related to all the systems". And i really hope a very good biologist take the challenge, in order to explain the most things possible.

and still no ones dares to take the challenge..

Some ones are tools like economic engineering.. and biology as i said is like a big familiar album, with a lot of notes and stuff... and yes you can disagree with individuals, so do i, but in this case, world is conceptually wrong naming biology science... as far as i can say right now, i only recognize chemistry and physics as sciences.. and probably in the future just physics, but by the moment, i have only arguments to prove that biology and psychology are not sciences. and as i said, i am not saying biology is useless, is just not science...

I never said it was useless, but it isn´t nor scientific nor precise, not objective.

You are also forgetting the pressure, down in the water the pressure increses and is harder to make ice and either to reduce temperature. There is less presure up (the division between iced sea and sky(ground level)) than below where the pascals increase while going down.