Unity+

That's more of a semantics argument rather than an argument of the actual concept.

On the contrary, computer science has everything to do with useful software. A majority of theory in computer science is based on the formation of logic and mathematics. Unlike physics, where theory is based on our current understanding of the Universe, computer science concerns itself with the axioms formulated within mathematics to produce algorithms based on such axioms.

Time to start creating space surf boards for gravity surfing(bad joke).

There is a lot of documentation on javascript. http://www.w3schools.com/js/default.asp

That makes sense. I wonder what would happen, though, if you had a virtual machine within a virtual machine and you had the same restrictions. Would having an infinite amount of them inside each other make it harder to discern the virtual machines?

But deciphering assembly code is different from obtaining the state of each transistor in the machine, I would think.

Yes, that is what I mean. In this case, would it be wrong to say that one could never determine whether any computer, given that data, was running an emulated version of itself?

That is the best way, as far as I know, to think of it.

I know we do it all the time, just a thought experiment. That isn't completely useful since there are other programs that could be executing way more functions.

So, the hypothetical here is let's say you have a physical computer that has the possibility of emulating the exact way that the physical computer works digitally. Considering that possibility, let's say that virtual computer can emulate another virtual machine. The question is if you were only given the data about the schematics of the physical machine and it's sequences of states within the circuitry, would you be able to tell that there is a virtual computer within a computer?

It would be interesting if we were able to implement elements of life, i.e. reduce the salt content of the water and stabilize the atmosphere, and life would start growing all on its own. It would take a long time, but if that happened then we could get a gist of what it used to look like.

You can also start looking at the language you want to "main" first. Once you have decided, start looking through their API and just experiment. The best way to learn to program is to experiment. That's what I learned from my experiences, at least.

What does this even mean?

It really depends what you mean. In my opinion, a scientist is someone with curiosity about how the Universe runs. They take the scientific method very seriously and make it something as a core to their personality, i.e. rationality. Curiosity and rationality are two of the main aspects of being a scientist. One important one is the willingness to admit ignorance to all and be a student rather than a teacher.

I was just questioning the logic you were presenting.

But I don't see how killing is a contradiction. It would like saying that killing someone is a crime even though self-defense can involve killing, but it isn't a crime or bad in the first place.

Providing passages without explanation of the proper context is not factual citation. Quoting out of context fallacy. False authority fallacy.

I think many of your accusations against the Bible are merely putting the passages out of context. In regards to the "Sword of the Gospel" example you provided, I think further context is required to understand it. http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html Taking the passages completely out of context to further a point that is mostly baseless is more ignorant than anything else.

Sorry for the late response. It turns out there was an improper unit measurement with the diameter of the cylinder, therefore the calculations in the software were done in ft/s^2 rather than m/s^2, aka human error.

Here is another set of data that we had for a wood cylinder:

So, I am doing a free-fall lab for my physics class. We got the values and I have the results here(we used a infrared photo-gate). Basically, we have a brass cylinder and a wood cylinder. Each are dropped in the middle of 5 infrared photo-gates before hitting the ground, which calculate the velocities and the time at which they passed through. We had 4 trials done(the recommended amount). We needed to calculate the acceleration to determine whether it was approximately equal to 9.81 m/s^2. However, when calculating the acceleration, we got weird results. First, we decided to subtract the velocities between gates and subtract the times between and then divide the velocity change by the time difference and here is one result we got that makes no sense: 31.13 m/s^2. We then decided to calculate it as if we are going from 0 velocity to N velocity, the results we got. We got better results, but they had an increasing acceleration. Here is the first set of results: 10.18 m/s^2, 13.96 m/s^2, 15.63 m/s^2, 19.8 m/s^2. I will try using averaging, but I wanted to make sure I calculated the results correctly. Is there a mistake that was made?