AtomicMX

Is there any physics formula or theory about how to calculate the amount of the van der walls forces or london dispersion forces?

Exactly crash... for example... in the common life definition is easier to prove that a computer is alive than a virus... That the case in the subjetivity of the biology... and as far as i know chemistry and physics are all perfectly and exaclty the same arround the world with no different points of view. (talking about postulates, because lastests quantum theories, are not theories but hypothesis.

Science cannot be subjective, if that were the case imagine the panic and uncertainty in the world(about who´s right), and those needs are filled with science, things that are. (of course objectives because things are even if you don´t want to see them that way). I try to diss biologist because they are not scientist, they are just notes takers and they call themselves scientists, and biology is no more than a big collection of data no much different from an album.. My little brother could do the same stuff because its only about observation.. no more.. I do not bother, i really love science, the true sciences that are chemistry and physics, if you disagree you could take my challenge "Biology and Psychology are not sciences "... and about the scientist, so the ones that had to rasonate, the ones that dream and build hypothesis and proved them (all together) are not the true scientist for you.. only biologist are the really true scientist.. my god... I am open to science, not to points of view. and you should understand that.

jajajajajaajaja

this is the reason i hate biology.. because is too subjective.. the goal of these posts are to get life definitions for another thread that is tittled "computers are alive"... cause if you follow the life definitions you could consider a computers as a living thing. i really do not consider them alive, is mostly to prove how st00pid biology is.

nice one but.... is it official?

the three would get hurt almost equal depending of the resistence the oppose to the current but mmm perhaps the peoples in the extemes would feel it more cause the "caliber" or the figer is shorter than the one of the hands.

Yes, its the same code. Thats why i am thinking the compiler is the reason. (btw in asm there are no types) (and what you could car var is mostly a label)

Assembly allows to handle 256 and 320 x 240 resolution but... how can you access more colors if you know you have a very advanced video card.. for example i got a Radeon 9700 pro and i would like to write a code to use it at least at 1024x768 with 32 bit depth. How can i make this? Any examples with other video cards?

Biology is supposed to be a science. then... Which is the approved life definition "by the science"?

(this programs is different from the first i talked about but occurs just the same) i compiled it in tasm .model tiny .386 .code org 100h _main: push 0a000h pop es mov ax,13h int 10h xor di,di mainlop: stosb add al,0a0h jnc mainlop add di,320 jnc mainlop quit: int 16h mov ax,03h int 10h ret end _main Someone compiled it and got 255bytes. I did it and got 884bytes.

well then i could make a challenges for this topic either.. if you like we could talk about it.

The challenge is on challenges forums and its Biology and Psychology are not sciences. and well... most of the definitions of live can be applied to computers... And i do not know little about the topic.

exactly.

i use assembly..

Errrr living things live because they need outside interference/intervention. And i hate biology because it is not a science as thought (i started a challenge that no ones dares to take by the way.) and because is too subjective. That´s why if you use the biology definition of live, you could be able to consider computers as living things my friend.

First of all i hate biology.... The living things have being considered as those whom present some characteristics. Growth - You can make a computer that repairs itself and add itself new stuff with a nice coded program. Metabolism - Energy Supply, Batteries, with a nice program that makes the computer indetify energy supply. Motion- Computer would have to move to repair itself.. Reproduction.- Nice code and mechanisms to make the computer build another. Response to stimuli - Kerboard? Sensors? Cameras?

oxygen, and ozone..... 02 and 03 or i did not undertand the question

Does compilers make the same program bigger o shorter in size? Because in ASM a program that weight 66byte (.com) i had its source code and compiled it with TASM and got an 876bytes program (.exe) why is this happening?

Then put the thing for millions of years and then start it... the thing is that if you let it started more than those 60 minutes.. the thing will get out... or frozen in the interchange.... Your past of entering the machine is getting out... i don´t know if you catch me this.

and because it can make nets of itself...

Silicon its supposed to be able to from as many compounds as carbon but.. in very very speciall conditions...

Because it has 4 electrons to share...

Someone asked me that if you could travel throug the time and i instantly said no. But thinking about it, yes you can travel to the time, if you could do some stuff. For example... if you invert all electromagnetic field and run your electrons spin exactly the opposite you´d be travelling to the time backwards... Thinking that you could build a machine that inverts the electromagnetic fields, then you enter in... spend one hour inside then you turn it on.... you´ll travel backwards 1 hour. Einstein could never bind electromagnetic fields with gravity.. i dont think is to hard (hypotheticaly) though everything responds to electromagnetic fields, gravity is just a consecuence, such as lodon dispersion, and van der walls... .... i am just wondering.. so dont be rude with your comments... and... another time machine.. that is utopic.. is macking all calculations backwards having all data (ALL that´s why its utopic (never reachable)) but there you have your mathematical time machine... and btw if you could freeze and atom and start calculating the speed and the position of the electron you would be breaking heisenbergs principle. remmeber.. dont be so rude.. i am just wondering.

i wasted my valuable time and bandwith to see something i cant still understand... .... sight..... i mean you could only have add a and b and all would be the same... and still... what does it has to do with relativity disaproval..