You should go forward ';to time'; to see if you learned how to write.That was true,we can go forward to time but i have make an experiment that we can go travel back to time?
good luck
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Time and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
I went to the beach and the tide was there,i waited for an hour and it was still there but when i got home i missed Coronation S t because time had not waited for meTime and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
King Canute got his feet wet the same way!Time and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
First grader ?
Life goes on if you are there or not.
Hence time %26amp; tide wait for no man.
To put it another way: Man can't stop time or the tides in the seas.
Thats really sad mising coronation street. I hope you are ok. Can you get a copy of the missed episode from a friend. Perhaps you could ask that question on this site and borrow it. I am sad for you. How annoying.
ever thought of using a video tha corrie would have waited for you
You should have set your video on TIMER and while time wouldn't actually wait for you, you'd have missed nothing!
But the tide is always there.....what it means is it doesn't stop......say...at high tide...all day...anyway...Corrie..you could have videoed it...watched it later on freeview..or if you are one of these peeps with sky plus...set it to record it for you..to watch any time.
If you'd sat at the low water mark.....you would have got quite wet within an hour.
Time %26amp; tide wait for none. It is 100% true. Tide appears in the sea %26amp;disappers into sea, the oone you watched is not same tide. We have become too much time consious. Tea breakfast lunch dinner dance school time so %26amp; so on. What is time?
and how do you know that the tide you saw was meant for you?
In todays hyperreality time and space is compressed to the point where it is almost irrelevant. Coronation Street will be stored in digital form somewhere if you needed to watch it that badly. And as for tide, although on a beach it is true there are certain places with big water gates that control the tide. lol.
try another experiment to prove it.
it never does that's why you can't watch each and every episodes of the programmes you enjoy that's why there is point to get sad!!!!
King Canute got his feet wet the same way!Time and tide wait for no man.Is this true?I think not-----because I tried an experiment?
First grader ?
Life goes on if you are there or not.
Hence time %26amp; tide wait for no man.
To put it another way: Man can't stop time or the tides in the seas.
Thats really sad mising coronation street. I hope you are ok. Can you get a copy of the missed episode from a friend. Perhaps you could ask that question on this site and borrow it. I am sad for you. How annoying.
ever thought of using a video tha corrie would have waited for you
You should have set your video on TIMER and while time wouldn't actually wait for you, you'd have missed nothing!
But the tide is always there.....what it means is it doesn't stop......say...at high tide...all day...anyway...Corrie..you could have videoed it...watched it later on freeview..or if you are one of these peeps with sky plus...set it to record it for you..to watch any time.
If you'd sat at the low water mark.....you would have got quite wet within an hour.
Time %26amp; tide wait for none. It is 100% true. Tide appears in the sea %26amp;disappers into sea, the oone you watched is not same tide. We have become too much time consious. Tea breakfast lunch dinner dance school time so %26amp; so on. What is time?
and how do you know that the tide you saw was meant for you?
In todays hyperreality time and space is compressed to the point where it is almost irrelevant. Coronation Street will be stored in digital form somewhere if you needed to watch it that badly. And as for tide, although on a beach it is true there are certain places with big water gates that control the tide. lol.
try another experiment to prove it.
it never does that's why you can't watch each and every episodes of the programmes you enjoy that's why there is point to get sad!!!!
It is said that Emperor Trajan did an experiment that prevents babies from having affection. Is it true?
No. There is no reason to believe he did any such thing. When you say it's ';said'; do you mean you read it somewhere? Or what?network security
Vectors can never be used as delivery agents in genetic engineering experiments, True or False?
false, vectors are a huge compenet of genetic engineeringVectors can never be used as delivery agents in genetic engineering experiments, True or False?
The term ';vector'; means, to carry or shuttle; or, as a vehicle to carry something into something else.
A plasmid or even a virus might be used as a vehicle, vector, to carry a gene into another living cell.
The term ';vector'; means, to carry or shuttle; or, as a vehicle to carry something into something else.
A plasmid or even a virus might be used as a vehicle, vector, to carry a gene into another living cell.
Friday, February 5, 2010
In an experiment, the CONTROL group is used to test the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE... True or False?
I thought it was True, but I was wrong (it was a question on a test).In an experiment, the CONTROL group is used to test the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE... True or False?
False; the control is used to compare the effect of an independent variable as nothing is used on the controlIn an experiment, the CONTROL group is used to test the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE... True or False?
False because the control is not altered. It is just used as a base for comparison
The control group is to maintain a known component of the experiment. The independent variable is compared to the control value to determine results. The wording of the question is very tricky!
False; the control is used to compare the effect of an independent variable as nothing is used on the controlIn an experiment, the CONTROL group is used to test the effect of the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE... True or False?
False because the control is not altered. It is just used as a base for comparison
The control group is to maintain a known component of the experiment. The independent variable is compared to the control value to determine results. The wording of the question is very tricky!
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that ?
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that spontaneous generation occurs?
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that ?
You've got no ';following statements'; to choose from.
The idea that complex life is formed from inanimate matter (maggots from rotting meat, for example) was shown to be false back in the 17th century.
If you're talking about the origin of life, that's called abiogenesis. It's different from spontaneous generation in that it proposes that simple life arose from the complex reactions in the chemical-rich primordial seas. That life would have been extremely simple, even compared to modern bacteria, and not obviously different from the chemical reactions naturally occurring around it.
So far, abiogenesis isn't even at the level of a theory (that's the scientific definition of theory, not the common definition, look it up if you don't know what I mean). It's currently a hypothesis. Some experiments have supported it, but nothing has been proven. Take the Urey-Miller experiment, for example. It didn't propose a mechanism for how life arose... it simply showed that complex organic molecules (that form the foundation of life) could possibly form naturally under certain conditions. Supporting evidence, yes, but far from proof. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily *wrong,* just that we need to do a lot more research before we can say we've figured it our.
Which of the following statements is probably true about the experiments that supposedly proved that ?
You've got no ';following statements'; to choose from.
The idea that complex life is formed from inanimate matter (maggots from rotting meat, for example) was shown to be false back in the 17th century.
If you're talking about the origin of life, that's called abiogenesis. It's different from spontaneous generation in that it proposes that simple life arose from the complex reactions in the chemical-rich primordial seas. That life would have been extremely simple, even compared to modern bacteria, and not obviously different from the chemical reactions naturally occurring around it.
So far, abiogenesis isn't even at the level of a theory (that's the scientific definition of theory, not the common definition, look it up if you don't know what I mean). It's currently a hypothesis. Some experiments have supported it, but nothing has been proven. Take the Urey-Miller experiment, for example. It didn't propose a mechanism for how life arose... it simply showed that complex organic molecules (that form the foundation of life) could possibly form naturally under certain conditions. Supporting evidence, yes, but far from proof. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily *wrong,* just that we need to do a lot more research before we can say we've figured it our.
An experiment of alcohol in the blood has a standard deviation uncertinatyof 2.0mgmL-1 and true value of a?
particular sample of 78.5mg mL-1 what is the probability that the mean value of five replicate measurments of the smaple will be greater than 80mg mL-1An experiment of alcohol in the blood has a standard deviation uncertinatyof 2.0mgmL-1 and true value of a?
And....
And....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)