Dry my hair - you want to try the following...the answer are limited

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

There are dissolving nature, that is not saying you seeing a visual buttom where the precipitation meets the eyes. Dissolving something into somewhere, meaning, its mixture completely "dissolved".

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

The phase of the chemistry known to mankind at the moment, are mostly validating from their boiling point and melting points.

And therefore, thus 3 phase. Solid, liquid, and Gas.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

The scientific measurement its for the lab reason, meaning to proven a theory reason.

So that, its the unit becoming a real factor, on your inventory pricing that the university campus pays.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

The standard....well, when a procedure being simplied we are from the ground up human, rather than going it down the flat down, below the sea surface, you will always just make everything easy called the standard pressure in that 1 ATM = the sea level, including zero height to 2 Meter high like Thranduil or X Man. There is no difference. That heights to the atmospheric pressure are almost nothing difference.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

You are mistaken the liquid or the gas, when you saying how the wind blows, or how the experimental results defining you the atomsphere pressure coming from in that definition. You seeing the liquid, you swimming inside the base of the swimming pool, you can sense that, your body feeling it. True, the liquid entire coming down your body, that is the pressure equal, that is the Water pressure. You didn't say there is the air pressure on the Top of the Water, or that will be super ilegal by now in the public utility design. Rumor ever heard?

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

You can only define an experimental results because there is an experiment. By the theory on the other hand its a theory, it will be the most Perfect Mr X.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

You cannot define a liquid to the gas, its just as it seems to you, the air cannot be touch by that if the liquids are not contains or confine in an utensil, and if the air didn't dissolving the liquid before it enter, you meaning the human effort the industrial methods, they inject the color gas, or the pressure or the volumn to making a soy meat. Its "pressing" it to having that texture, you don't coming out of a soymilk to imagine how you entering one phase to another by just staring at that graph.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

You can say the equation are the mathmetical calculation once the theory are formed. Because there are a lot of the existing formula on the present since 1920, how the electron theory or the periodic table starting to take form. You have a basic atom formulation, that doesn't mean you have a mixture being added, to define how many kinds of the chemical reaction is out there. That was still a little far before they reaching that overall conclusion.

You can say, people by guessing it, this adding this, you have a product, not knowing if that is radioactive. That is what happened. Love science doesn't give you a quantitative methods, so that qualitative means to meet that guidelines, you will lose one of those skin cancer in the results.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

You don't have to proven every theory. But then, that will stay as a hypothesis, not going on with a possible results, carrying through the procedure included, including some creative process how to reduce or lesson a particular ratio in that calculation you observe the details. There is no straight answer if you seeing a byproduct along the way. In the industrial side, how every penny count, it will be your every money to pick up at that by product, how to destroy, or how to re-utilized, instead of just saying seeing the machine the temperature got highten through the thermometer, because you can see. Its a waste heat form, you will never utilized, but still a part of the equation and you have to included as your human error. You cannot really say that is the machine error, cannot you?

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

The modern science by definition are always always use that 1921 Bohr's theory, not 1928 Micky Mouse. Not really, no matter what conclusion you drawn upon anything else.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$

You have a Time factor, yes, but in the chemistry section where you saying the threshold, or the catalytic reaction if someone just added in something else. The funny thing is, they always finding something to add it in. That is the time factor you saying in Chemistry, not in physics.

 

!@#$!#@$#!@$#!$!@#$ 

Maybe you should get a textbook, you can open that book and read it to me. You are guessing which graphs, or you know what statement you transcribe to the literacy textbook if that one is not me written in it, just memory photo copy at it?

You probably don't realize what you all doing, you keep mountain fold your entire per question in it. You are asking me to re-write that textbook in the thousand formats, just the exactly the same textbook you open at. That is the Europe University question called Open Book culture. That culture are not in the US. We don't open the text book.