coke

Actually, that makes sense. If someone is looking from outside the ship, they would see that all the people are approaching stillness and not moving. So, the particles also get slown down. The definition of temperature? The average thermal collisions by the movement of the particles. At absolute zero, the movement of the particles is zero. The electrons even stop spinning. Of course only somebody on the outside of the ship would see the temperature at 0° Kelvin, inside the ship it seems normal.

i assume you mean beating the turtle or the halfway one... Lets use the halfway one its simpler... your speed stays constant, but supposedly it wouldnt work because to get to some goal, you have to get halfway there first... in reality he's simply taking a linear function, y = x where y is distance and x is time, and making an infinite amount of points of both y and x Say you are trying to get somewhere 2 miles away. You walk at 1mph. This can be modeled by y = x. At x = 2, y = 2 so it will take you 2 hours. Now Xeno's way: In each halfway step its x miles: 1 mile, 0.5 mile, 0.25 mile, 0.125 mile, 0.0625 mile,... and going on forever... but adds up to 2 miles the time for each of these goals, at 1mph, is y hours: 1 hour, 0.5 hour, 0.25 hour, 0.125 hour, 0.0625 hour,... and going on forever... but adds up to 2 hours You should have gotten over the 2 miles after 2 hours. Xeno simply made an infinite amount of steps out of both x and y... But his real trick is that he only pointed out the infinite amount of steps in x, thus making it seem impossible. In logic, it's impossible. In math, the paradox can be simplified into a linear equation, i.e. y = x when relating to time. The turtle paradox is the same concept, but a little more complicated.

the most stable atoms nuclearly, with the most binding force, are iron-56 and nickel-58. atoms with lower masses often fuse or such to try to get to about 56. atoms with higher masses are often unstable and split up to get down to around 56. Helium is pretty stable also. Atoms that have too few or too many neutrons are also unstable (between 1 and 1.5 is the best ration for protons/neutrons.) This is because, as somebody mentioned, the protons are all ppositively charged and repel each other, but at close enough distance gravity between the protons and neutrons is higher than the repulsive forse... in large atoms this force comes into play... here's a graph of the binding energy of the elements that also explains why iron is the most abundant element in the earth (earth's core is molten/solid iron) and many stars ... the center of most stars is iron (although our sun works exclusively on [math]^{2}_{1}[/math]H + [math]^{2}_{1}[/math]H > [math]^{4}_{2}[/math]He)

Consider using a sulfate (i.e.epsom salt) instead of a chloride, sodium chloride electrolyses too easily into into sodium hydroxide and chlorine... If i were you I would just tie it up to a voltemeter and see how long it will take to create a certain amount of H2 and O2 for each one. Or if you have a fixed current (i.e. a dc converter), forget the voltemeter. This is given to the fact how would you calculate the amount of energy from blowing it up?

Well if the powers of the fluoride ion make HF more corrosive then HCl, why doesn't the nitrate or sulfate ion make HNO3 and H2SO4 more corrosive then HCl? In fact, I know they are more corrosive. And the Hammett acidity function you gave me to look up, it agrees what I am saying. Fluorine (V=3) has significantly better oxidizing potential than chlorine (V=1.4), which makes HF more corrosive than HCl despite HCl being the stronger acid in water. About the H2O2, ok there's another way of thinking about it- H2O2 oxidizes whatever you are oxidizing and then the acid does a double substitution with the oxide. But the only difference in this explanation is that you can also explain why an acid + H2O2 often defeats passivation. But what he was saying was that most of nitric acid's corrosiveness comes from its oxidizing abilities... (although the nitrate radical is still more electronegative than the oxygen radical, so H2O2 + HCl would not be more corrosive than nitric acid). In life you'll find that the H3O+ concentration does not really matter, outside of maybe organic chemistry or something. Because, in water an acid exists in equilibrium with H3O+ and its negative ion. Say HF, which dissociates only about 10%, is used on potassium. [ce]HF + H2O <-> H3O^+ + F^-[/ce] [ce]2H3O^+ + 2F^- + 2K -> 2H2O + H2 + 2F^- + 2K^+[/ce] as you can see, the second reaction consumes both H3O+ and F-, thus the equilibrium moves in the first equation to produce more H3O+ and F-...which continue to eat through the potassium. No water at all? Still fine. Gaseous hydrogen fluoride will eat through potassium, no problem. H+ is the strongest acid? Yep. But the least corrosive. Because reacting, say Na, with an acid, say HA, would mean the H+ reluctantly taking back its electron and turning into H2, the Na being happy to give its electron and turn to Na+, and how much A- is happier to be paired with Na+ than H+. That last part is hard to recognize, especially when everything is ionized in solution. But heat is released. The Lewis definition for acids is much better when talking about corrosiveness. After all, the acid would be more corrosive if it didn't have the hydrogen at all, just the fluorine or sulfate radical or whatever. Bronsted Lowry's 'prot0nate' definition makes sense only for pH, which is what I think the "bunch of bollocks" is, as you say, for what makes hydrogen so special? Why should only hydrogen salts get to be acids? Silver nitrate is more corrosive than nitric acid; silver is one of those few things that are less reactive then hydrogen. And if you disagree with this, I can easily give you an example- lead nitrate will react with potassium iodide, even in solution, where they are ionized. potassium is happier to be with nitrate, nitrate is happier to be with potassium. lead and iodide are less reactive, respectively, then potassium and nitrate, and so they will just have to settle for each other. [ce]Pb(NO3)2 + 2KI -> 2KNO3 + PbI2[/ce] Of course, many people will say there would be no reaction, the ions all remain ionized!. But the reaction has occured, and has released some heat. The reason I picked the is because you can't argue that the reaction hasn't occured because you will get quite a bit of yellow potassium iodide precipitate! But the same will be for many salts, i.e. sodium sulfate and potassium chloride. In fact, here's the simplest double substitution formula.AY + BX > AX + BY even if they just stay as A+, B+, X-, Y-. where A and B are metals, A more reactive, and X and Y are nometals, X more reactive. A is happier with X, X is happier with A, and B and Y just have to settle for each other. thus proving that quote i quoted. Sorry this post came out so long, I just want to prove the difference between strongest and most corrosive acid.

my eyes are a grayish green, but the top with a small faint brown circle through each iris... in my right eye the top sector looks discolored brown...

Stronger acid in which way, more corrosive or donates more hydrogen ions? Because for example hydrochloric acid is a stronger acid then hydrofluoric, but hydrofluoric is much more corrosive. Nitric acid dissociates slightly worse, but the nitrate ion has more oxidizing potential then the chloride ion, meaning nitric acid is more powerful not just due to the oxidizing power of nitrates...(i.e. even nitrate salts are oxidizers). I agree YT2095, the oxygen from hydrogen peroxide helps strip the hydrogens off the acid, so that they are not left unpaired.

how good of an oxidizer is powdered sodium percarbonate? It's available very easily as detergent/stain remover. First off, its 2 sodium bicarbonate molecules in crystalline structure with 3 hydrogen peroxides. It releases 3 hydrogen peroxides in water. We all know hydrogen peroxide is a good oxidizer, so say if you mixed powdered sodium percarbonate with powdered aluminum, would you get a thermite type reaction? Also, if you mix it with only a tiny amount of water, can you get like 50% H2O2?

Yeah like say if you want 5 days in minutes, you don't have to say 5/24 * 1/60. You can just type "5 days in minutes".

no, i understand that organic compounds are extremely important on an industrial scale, or if your profession is biochemist or something... but what can you possibly make at home?

what's the point of organic chemistry? I mean I see the fun in unorganic chemistry- i.e. creating cool compounds, salts, nice bangs & flashes, etc. but like the things i see people making here- cyclohexylmethanamine, p-nitrobromobenzene, 2-methylcyclohexanone, etc., what's so interesting to do with them? really, the only things i see where organic syntheses are useful are like industrial products (i.e. making hydrocarbons, etc.) and drugs/medicines, but what can you possibly do with the products of the organic experiments you do at home? and if you do make some kind of methylation/nitration or cyclisize or hydrlosize something, how would you know? its not as easy as with inorganic chemistry where things change colors, precipitate, turn into gas, etc.

ah, interesting I thought only polar compounds dissolved in water.

can an element dissolve in water without reacting with it? element by itself is nonpolar, yes? even if its diatomic, theres no difference in electronegativity...

i remember reading something in popsci about gravitons which are their own antimatter. (graviton = antigraviton)... i think they repel against matter.

i have a thought about this, see if it makes sense: sodium wants to be oxidized. Na2O is a stable compound, however, each oxygen is already reduced by two sodiums. An NaO radical (just in theory) is a weaker oxidizer to the sodium then a OH radical, since O is less reduced by H then by Na. This makes OH preferable to a strong reduced like sodium or calcium. With a strong reducer, hydroxides are favorable. oxygen wants to be reduced. Two Hs, as in water, kind of reduce it, but metals generally do a better job. iron hydroxide has oxygen reduced by a H and Fe. but being a strong oxidizer, it wants to be reduced even more, by two Fe (Fe is more reactive then H). So iron hydroxide oxidizes into iron oxide. With a weak reducer, oxide is favorable. So, for ionic compounds, it seems like- if the oxidizer is stronger at redox then the reducer, things are moved around so the oxidizer is happy. If the reducer is stronger, things are moved around so the reducer is happy. By happy i mean like sodium is happier as a hydroxide then an oxide.

ok, follow my reasoning: hydroxide is more reactive then oxygen proof: calcium oxide reacts with water to form calcium hydroxide iodine is more reactive then hydroxide proof: calcium hydroxide reacts with hydroiodic acid to form calcium iodide and water oxygen is more reactive then iodine proof: hydroiodic acid is oxidized by air to form iodine and water so, wheres the flaw? hydroxide makes a better ion then oxygen, iodine makes a better ion then hydroxide, and oxygen makes a better ion then iodine...

wait a sec... thats list by density of elements... the most dense element is well known to be osmiun, followed by those other transition metals- platinum, gold, etc, but osmium is not necesarily the most densest material... most densest material might be some compound