Dr.

I was using the general definition of the word theory, since we have already established that you all do not understand the idea of reasonable doubt. You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

Zeno's main idea was that "It is", even if you say it isn't, you've already contradicted yourself, because you've admitted that "It does not exist" but simply not existing is itself an existence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI'm just curoius, what are your thoughts on evolution? does evolution extend to the point of being fat louts who eat McDonald's cheeseburgers while talking on their blue-tooth headsets driving down the road downloading illegal MP3'a to their Iphones and smiling their pharmaceutically induced smiles from all the Prozac they took before they went to work?

Zeno and Socrates have never been proven incorrect because they cannot be, any attempt to say otherwise would be a contradiction. Their theories are just as applicable now as they were in their time.

Then I will have done my good deed for the day my friend. haha Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedas to your references of my fallacious thoughts and logic, I suppose you believe yourself to know more than Zeno and Plato, since I have essentially just quoted them... interesting.

The atomic bomb dropped by the 'Enola gay', killed more people than the entire black plague, and as to your technology, what of the firearm? and I'm sure you can find lots of information regarding the fire-bombings of dresden and other plagues of technology.

If I jump off a building I'll never land, because I'l have to go halfway first.

empericism is itself a philosophy, hahaha. Humble yourself, for just as Zeno, Socrates, etc. you know nothing, we all know nothing. And I'm sure Zeno would quite easily out-wit you my friend.

I will present you with plenty of evidence when I return from my trip my friend, I am a history professor, these things I know, just as you know your sciences. I am interested in your "profession" (I do not know if it is your profession, but I am assuming) which is why I am here, albeit your arguments thus far have been less than stellar.

interesting, so, something that does not conform to your independent view of reality is labeled as untruth?

haha a very ignorant response my friend, people have reverted back after using technology many times throughout history without experiencing anything like 95% of the population dying or anything even remotely close to that morbid conclusion. In fact, the Meiji Restoration of Japan, one of the happiest times, and healthiest, was the result of the reversion from the gun back to the "primitive" weapons such as the yari and the sword. Technology has ended more lives than it has saved, it is an undeniable truth. as a side note, have you read the news lately in regards to North Korea threatening to declare war on the united states?

your arguments assume that the term reasonable has a quantifiable meaning. What to one man seems reasonable can to another seem to be complete folly. relate this to the philosophy of Zeno, he argued that motion was impossible, he stated that: " even granting motion, one could never arrive anywhere, not even to such a simple goal as a door. Before one can get to the door, you must go halfway, but before you can go halfway, you must go halfway of the remaining halfway, but before you can do that, you must go halfway of the halfway, but before you can go halfway, you must go halfway. When does this argument end? Never! It goes on for infinity. Therefore, even something so simple as motion would be impossible, even if it were possible" so you see my friends, nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, even a reasonable doubt, as these are not measurable quantities, and even things that are apparently measurable have an inherent un-measurability about them.

yes but this still does not answer the question, Why do we NEED to navigate a plane through a 10-G turn. the answer is, we don't. The only things we really need are food, oxygen, and water, everything else is simply circumstantial. Man has created for himself problems that are beyond his own limitations, and rather than accepting those limitations, attempts to overcome them with machines.

I believe what the post above me is saying is that a person in a state of conjecture mistakes an image for reality. ? correct me if I'm wrong.

It is my opinion that a machine will never be able to perform on the same level as a human being without a human being providing it with some type of instruction. Even if it is possible, Artificial Intelligence is not needed anyways, what is it that you need a machine to accomplish with it's own "mind" that you cannot accomplish with your own mind and some initiative? I think this is one of the fundamental problems with the world today, laziness. Everyone wants artificial intelligence to do things for them, to make life easier, but I tell you that hard work has made man prosper for thousands of years now and hard work is what the world will return to one day, when the sciences finally go beyond their intended objectives.

"What cannot be done is to prove a theory to be true with no doubt whatsoever." The same as I said, simply phrased differently and now you are entering in to the realm of philosophy, since many philosophers have speculated that nothing can be proven to a point of no doubt. so to explain, scientific theory is no more valid than biblical theory, it just has a mathematical nature about it and seems (to the limit of our senses and apparent understanding) to conform to patterns and be re-produced.

doesn't the very nature of the word theory imply that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Indeed I did, I was simply fishing through the internet attempting to help the kid with his project, I have a PhD. in History, I made no claims to be a chemist. oh yes, and of course, a copyright must be applied for in the united states to be considered legal, but I'm sure you already knew that. can I not post information from another website on this forum? or does it require citation? I am unfamiliar with Internet blogs and forums, as I spend most of my time doing productive things, such as teaching about the sengoku period of Japan, or the siege of Alamut, or simply reading books. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedand it is not plagiarism, the internet is protected by a federal act called the "fair use" clause. also, as clearly defined in US law, expression is protected, but ideas and facts are not. The information contained within that article is chemistry, is chemistry not fact? and at least the historical aspects of it are fact. So, you should not accuse of plagiarism until you understand intent, which mine was clearly to aid this young man in his research on the given topic.

thanks

I was wondering if anyone had any relatively easy procedures to produce dry ice? any help would be appreciated.

The manufacture of sulfuric acid presents us with an interesting lesson in industrial economics. We have seen that the roasting of sulfide ores produces sulfur dioxide as a waste product. For example: 2 PbS(s) + 3 O2(g) -----> 2 PbO(s) + 2 SO2(g) From the beginning of metal smelting to the mid 18th Century, sulfur dioxide was simply sent up a chimney into the atmosphere. Over long periods of time, the sulfur dioxide slowly reacts with oxygen and water in the atmosphere producing sulfuric acid: 2 SO2(g) + O2(g) -----> 2 SO3(g) SO3(g) + H2O(l) -----> H2SO4(l) This is one important source of acid rain. Consequently, a smelter was not the ideal place to build your dream home. But the world was big in those days, the wealthy simply didn't live near a smelter, and the environmental lobby was nonexistent. The discovery that indigo could be used to dye wool changed the situation dramatically. Now there was a demand for sulfuric acid but no way to produce it cheaply in the quantities demanded by the textile industry. In 1746 John Roebuck developed the lead chamber process for the manufacture of sulfuric acid. Prior to this time, sulfuric acid had been produced in glass bottles several pounds at a time. But the lead chamber process could produce sulfuric acid by the ton. In the lead chamber process, sulfur and potassium nitrate are ignited in a room lined with lead foil. Potassium nitrate, or saltpeter is an oxidizing agent which we have seen when we discussed explosives. The saltpeter oxidizes the sulfur to sulfur trioxide according to the reaction: 6 KNO3(s) + 7 S(s) -----> 3 K2S + 6 NO(g) + 4 SO3(g) The floor of the room was covered with water. When the sulfur trioxide reacted with the water, sulfuric acid was produced: SO3(g) + H2O(l) -----> H2SO4(aq) Notice that this process depends on cheap supplies of saltpeter and produced yet another air pollutant, nitrogen monoxide. Thus we have to pay for a nitrogen source, saltpeter, and all of the nitrogen winds up going up the smokestack. Saltpeter could be replaced with its less expensive cousin, sodium nitrate ("Chile saltpeter") but nevetheless you wind up paying for nitrogen which winds up as a waste product. Saltpeter was a significant expense. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJoseph Gay-Lussac invented a process for recovering the nitrogen in nitrogen monoxide and recycling it to replace the saltpeter as a source of nitrogen to generate sulfuric acid also: 4 NO(g) + O2(g) + 2 H2O(l) -----> 4 HNO2(l) 4 HNO2(l) + 2 SO2(g) -----> 2 H2SO4(aq) + 4 NO(g) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso, would this not be possible? CaSO4(s) + 2 H2O(l) -------> Ca(OH)2(aq) + H2SO4(aq) or CaSO4(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) ------> CaCO3(s) + H2SO4(aq) ??? This may also be of interest: You can replicate the most primitive production of sulfuric acid from sulfur and saltpeter. The reaction will take place in a test tube with very little air, so we must count on the saltpeter to supply all of the oxygen. Begin by balancing the reaction: KNO3(s) + S(s) -----> K2S + N2(g) + SO3(g) or, H2O + KNO3(s) + S(s) -----> K2S + N2(g) + H2SO4(l) Then use stoichiometry to calculate the number of grams of saltpeter needed to react with 1.0 g of sulfur. You will bring these calculations with you to the lab when you are ready to make sulfuric acid. You will also need a 2 L soda bottle to take the place of the original lead chamber. Begin by weighing 1.0 g of sulfur and your calculated weight of saltpeter and place this mixture into a clean, dry, test tube. Close the test tube with a rubber stopper fitted with a piece of glass tubing. Rinse your 2 L bottle with water and drain it, leaving the walls of the bottle wet. Put the glass tubing into the bottle and hold the test tube over a Bunsen burner. The sulfur and saltpeter will react producing a mixture of nitrogen monoxide (brown gas) and sulfur dioxide (clear gas). These react further in the presence of water to produce nitrogen and sulfur trioxide, which dissolves in the water to produce sulfuric acid. What you will see initially is a violent reaction as the sulfur and saltpeter are heated. Billowing clouds of gas will be produced and the material may even catch fire. This is nothing to worry about. The gas that is produced will be brown in color and will go out through the glass tubing and fill the 2 L bottle. The bottle will seem to be filled with brown, hazy mist: a mixture of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. The gas will turn clear and trasparent over the course of several minutes as the nitrogen oxides oxidize the sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide. Sulfur trioxide dissoves in water to produce sulfuric acid.