dr.syntax

REPLY: I do not believe there is a NATURAL desire for violence. I believe the vast majority of people now alive and those that fill our history books were at least moderately and with many, severely neurotic. This almost universal neurosis is caused by inadequate parental practices that are to a large degree accepted as " normal ". The true needs of infants and young children are rarely met in today`s World or that of the past. I will give an example of a place and time in history that was not full of a bunch of screwball neurotics. That place and time is: Pre-Columbian Hispaniola. That island is now divided into the two Nations: The Dominican Republic and Haiti and lies a short distance east of Cuba. These people lived a war free lifestyle with no police and such until Columbus and the Spanish arrived on the scene and soon put an end to their pleasant lifestyle and eventually an end to their existence. Columbus himself wrote rather extensively about what wonderful people they were,peaceful and free. Things such as nudity was what was normal for these beautiful people. A very short discussion of these people is available at : [ http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/100.html ] for those interested. There are other societies described by different sailors accounts of thier adventures in the polynesian Islands. Such accounts include reports of many sailors deserting their ships to take up life with these natives. One of the main attractions was these different native groups casual and fun loving attitudes toward sex. Promiscuity was not looked down on. Sex was/is one of life`s greatest pleasures and these peoples saw no reason not to explore it as much they felt like it. Non-neurotic people have their infantile needs fulfilled and don`t become violence prone brutes. Dr.Arthur Janov and Dr. Aletha Solter,and many others discuss all this in detail, if you wish to look into it more for yourselves. Primal Therapy are key words to use in doing web searches about all this. Tragically, for the vast majority of peoples throughout history, they were compelled to produce entire cultures devoted to a significant degree ,to producing men violent enough to at least try and defend the group,tribe,City State, Nation they were members of. Ancient Greece and the Romans, the Vikings, Britain,France,Germany,Japan, the USA and on and on. History is replete with wars and events that illustrate this point. My point in all this is: that it is not human nature to embrace or in someway enjoy real violence. Speak to some of the men who have been involved in battles where they knew there was a very good chance they themselves would die. That was not some one sided affair where the outcome was all but assured in their favor. There are some who I have met and discussed such events with who I do believe got some big thrill out of it all. That is up until the time they themselves sustained a severe injury. Lost a leg or an arm. Were horribly disfigured in some way. Try telling someone who has lost an arm or a leg:" That which doesn`t kill you, makes you stronger". I have heard that stupid phrase bandied about by people who have never suffered anything I would call a severe injury. They may have been hit by a bullet or shrapnel, but the injury was not the type that cripples or disfigures them for the rest of their life. It`s all one big ugly lie. This idealization of violence that gets so very,very well promoted in the movies and on television. I wish some hollywood types and the others this produce this LYING SHIT, the writers,actors, and producer of this lying propaganda ,would be forced to be one of those horribly crippled by war for at least a month or so.The ones who actually fought these battles are largely ignored and the actors who played the roles are the ones who are looked up to as the real heroes . How screwball can a World get ? I can`t think of one of the current crop of TOUGH GUY actors who ever bothered to join the Army or Marine Corps,Navy or Air Force,or the Coast guard. Not one. War is not as much fun as it is cracked up to be in the movies. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: I did`t pay close enough attention to Cap`n and I apologize to him for not doing so. This is all new to me so I`m listening to the rest of you and may ask a question but can see I don`t have any answers. ....Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged REPLY: I appologize for not paying closer attention. You WERE DEFINING ELECTRONEGATITY which of course would not include He++ and I was not listening. My apologies sir, I stand corrected, aye,aye Cap`n. ...Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged REPLY: Well, I don`t know what to say. Though I will point out that He++,alpha particles do occur naturally here on Earth and do interact with organisms as does radon gas which also occurs naturally. But apparently my using the term electronegativity to He++ is an inappropriate use of the word. I guess plasma physics is the logical ,proper subject to discuss such issues in. Thanks to all you guys for your input. I hope I did`t offend anyone too much. I am a very confused person generally speaking, not just in this forum. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: Been waiting for you to check in on this one. So,under extreme conditions all electrons are stripped away. Let me ask you this. Are we talking about the sort of temperatures that exist in the sun as a opposed to suppose a super nova event ? Also is a helium ++ be the most electronegative chemical entity that occurs naturally here on Earth ? Like what happens during a lightening strike ? Would that strip all the electrons from oxygen and nitrogen ? ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: This is the sort of question that may provide an answer. I have the feeling some elements out there may very well be able to exist as more electronegative ions than He++. Let me ask you,do you know that if a naked Ni can exist ? I don`t think it can. There are factors that limit the number electrons that can be stripped from an atom. I always thought only the outer layer or shell could be stripped away so to speak. I may very well be wrong about that. I don`t know ,do you ? From all I have been able to find out : only outer shell electrons can be stripped from atoms. Though under extreme conditions such as those that exist in stars for instance I wouldn`t know if this held true. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: You can write up say a pamphlet discussing your ideas. Then go through the not difficult process of copyrighting it. It establishes a date and time for your work, an official record of it. You cannot copyright the idea,concept itself and expect any royalties from others using your ideas, but it establishes a record of your work, a date and such which can be of some value. It is just the same as copyrighting a book because that is what you are doing. I have done it. That`s as much as I know about it. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: Hello my good Friend, i was thinking along those same line. Strip off enough electrons of some element and I am not sure what the answer is. There are the different factors to consider. Such as the further away from the nucleus the outer shell exists the less electronegativity. An example would be that Fluorine is more electronegative than Chlorine. And that those elements on the right side of the periodic table , not including the noble gases, are more electronegative than those to the left if in the same horizontal section, which is divided or added to as the outer electron shells are added to. I am not sure what the answer is. Regards, Dr.Syntax ..... P.S. I am looking at Linus Paulings scale. He gives Fluorine a value of 4.0 and Chlorine a value of 3.0 . Which shows how dramatically the values change as shells are added to as you move up to the heavier elements and electron shells are added moving the electrons further and further from those protons in the different nuclei . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged REPLY: Yes, I`m looking at the Pauling scale now. But he does not include ions. I`m pretty sure he is the one who first came up with the whole concept of electronegativety and it was part of his: THE NATURE OF THE CHEMICAL BOND ,which won him one of his two NOBEL prizes. I appreciate your interest. ...Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If I`m not mistaken that -94 charge would indicate an excess of 94 electrons and that would make it`s electronegatity value exceptionally low not high. Regards, Dr.Syntax

Is an alpha particle the most electronegative chemical entity possible? Electronegativity is a chemical entity`s affinity for, or power to attract electrons. An Alpha particle is 2 protons and 2 neutrons fused together. It is exactly the same thing as the nucleus of a helium atom. I think it is. Because it requires 2 electrons to make it an electrically balanced atom, and there is that force that compels atoms to fill their outer electron shells. This is refered to as the octet rule,which in this unique case would be called the doublet rule perhaps. Also this outer electron shell is the first shell,placing the electrons closest to the protons as is possible. What is your take on this. Old hat,everybody already knows that,or not true, or something else. Whatever, ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: But still , a couple follow up questions : How can something as thin as that dead layer of skin stop what I thought was at least a fairly fast moving particle such as an alpha particle emitted during radio active decay ? Also, how can this thin layer stop such a particle if it is not hitting any thing as you said it`s electrostatic forces allowed it to do? Also,would not this alpha particle very rapidly grab from any available source [ the atoms that make up what ever tissues it passes through ] THOSE TWO ELECTRONS required to fill that first electron shell . Stop and think about it a moment. You have 2 bare naked protons fused together requiring 2 electrons to balance those 2 protons to make it an electrically balanced atom, and also the octet rule and that force also at work here, except in this unique atom it would be called the doublet rule. the force that compels atoms to fill their outer electron shells. Does an alpha particle have the strongest possible electronegativity value? It`s power of attraction for electrons. So if nothing else, it is going to be setting in motion, two sets of free radical chain reactions for every alpha particle that passes through any tissues. I do not see how these alpha particles can be as relatively harmless as you suggest they are. Your Friend, Dr.Syntax

REPLY: When you say Alpha emitter you mean an alpha particle don`t you ? An Alpha particle is 2 protons and 2 neutrons fused together, the nucleus of a helium atom, correct ? Please explain to me how the emission of this large particle is safe. Is it not likely to split any atom it hits into 2 or more parts. Say a carbon atom into 2 lithiums for instance. How can this not be very harmful. I would not bring it up except it is contrary to everything I thought I knew about the harmfulness of radiation. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: Thank you, you a very clear on you what you mean. So, does that not mean that the mass of the different atoms becomes somewhat smaller during exothermic chemical reactions ? The atom as a whole so to speak. ...Dr.Syntax

Samples including water and amino acids were retrieved from a comet and returned to Earth in 2006. So, someone with access to those samples measure the masses of those three elements, carbon,hydrogen, and oxygen`s atomic masses and get back me ASAP : ...Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged REPLY: Are the atoms the system ? If not,what is ? ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: The one thing I noticed going through this thread is that no one answered the questions which I reduced to one question in hopes of allaying any further confusion. That question is: What exactly becomes less massive when energy departs a system along with it`s mass as quantified in the equation E=MC^2 ? You state it is a ridiculously small amount. Never the less, some mass is lost. Now, consider the 14 billion years or so that this Universe has been in existence and how many times some of these atoms or their subatomic particles may have been recycled. It still may not amount to that much mass being lost.I do not know. I can imagine a highly skilled mathematician could come up with a fairly accurate amount of mass loss for say the hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms here on the surface of the earth and it`s atmosphere. Which goes to one of the original questions of this thread : Do endothermic reactions such as those associated with photo synthesis gain mass. It seems to me they would gain mass. So where is all this mass exchange going on ? Are the different sub atomic particles becoming less massive during exothermic reactions ? Let`s stick with that one question unless some one would like to answer both. What becomes less massive when energy departs a system with it`s mass as described by E=MC^2 ? During exothermic chemical reactions I presume,perhaps wrongly, that all the atoms and ions and their electrons do not disappear. I have not run across anything yet that says exactly where this mass loss occurs. Don`t just get mad at me because I don`t toady up to you. You Friend, Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged REPLY: Is there any measurable difference in the mass of the CARBON,HYDROGEN,and OXYGEN Atoms that have been actively involved in a wide variety of chemical reactions since the emergence of photosynthesis here on the planet Earth for about 3 billion years now.Of course this would also include those chemical reactions that transpired in all the different organisms that make use of those three different elements in their live`s metabolism. No matter how small the loss of mass due to the departure of mass that accompanies any exothermic chemical reaction is, it would seem to me that there would be a measurable difference due to the accumulative effect over those three billion years. Also, there may have been an overall increase in the mass of these atoms because of the overall endothermic result of these chemical reactions. This seems to me the most likely overall result of the chemical reactions involved in the life processes that occur on Earth. After all, is that not the net result of photosynthesis,the substantial gain and storage of energy during this process. Is that not what all these fossil fuels are ? A net gain of energy in at least the carbon and hydrogen,hydrocarbon molecules that make up the different hydrocarbons stored in the Earth ? So, are the carbon,hydrogen,and perhaps oxygen atoms measurably more massive than those same elements that have not been involved in life processes ? Are these questions already answered ? Are there any water samples to examine from the moon or Mars or from some comet ? I don`t know, do you ? ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: Why do you keep asking questions about creating dangerous gases ? You have been warned repeatedly about the dangerous nature of Cl 2, but keep asking similar leading questions. You already know how to create Cl 2,so why do you keep asking about it. I don`t know what you are up to but I do not trust you at all. ...Dr.Syntax

Imbibo ergo sum .....Who knows, it might just help. ...DS

Where and why did you come with that ? It got me crying again. A much needed healing sort of crying. Thank you, Your friend, ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: That`s your opinion. Among the different wiki articles I read it was stated that matter is confined energy. Any that when any given amount of energy leaves that system it takes it`s mass along with it as in the ratio given in E=MC2. This is what made it possible to grasp what all this E=MC2 stuff is all about. Am I not allowed to have an opinion that is different than yours ? Is that against the rules here. If it is let me know and I will have to come to a decision inside myself as to whether it is worth it to me or not to be a member here. I like this forum a lot. I`ve made some good friends here and such. I don`t know what to say. I am not going to get drawn into another war here,so to speak. They make me very unhappy. ...Dr.Syntax ... P.S. I just reread your post and am not sure we disagree about anything. I have never come to grips with all of this concept. And am making my first steps inside my mind toward understanding it. I will do some more web searches concerning the difference between mass and matter for one thing. Sincerely, Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged REPLY:Here is an explanation wiki answers . com provided :quote " A useful distinction between mass and matter can be described in the following way. Let`s use the mouse trap as an example. If I set the mousetrap it has more mass due to the energy I have put into it. E/C^2=M . So the mass has increased,but it still has the same amount of fundamental " matter" particles. [ electrons and quarks ]" unquote. So does this agree with your interpretation of the difference in matter and mass or not ? I would say that it adds to my recently acquired concept of what mass/ matter/ energy is. ...Dr.Syntax ... The web address for this is: [ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_mass_and_matter_different ].

REPLY: You are right as usual. I guess from reading the different wiki articles I finally GOT IT. I read a lot of them. They made it clear to me. Energy and matter are the same thing. Matter is a confined form of energy.When energy leaves a system it takes it`s mass with it in the ratio given in E=MC2. I never said you were wrong about anything. I guess the BUT meant the way it was worded made me finally understand what for some reason I never quite grasped before. If I offended you I am sorry. I see how you would be though that was not my intention I ASSURE you. Thanks to you I was spared a good deal of humiliation yesterday. Try not to be too tough on me, I am very tired. Now you take care , ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: But I also learned from some different wiki articles that mass is a confined form of energy. When energy leaves a system it takes it`s mass with it just as E=MC2 says it does. Also, kinetic energy can be converted to particles that have mass. Need some sleep. ...Dr.Syntax

REPLY: I was not clear in my question. I will stick with only one question. Unless I totally misunderstand it all : Some mass is lost in say the oxidation of H2. 2 H2+1 O2 = 2 H2O and heat or photons,energy. So what loses mass ? E=MC2 says some mass is lost because some energy is emitted . What loses mass ? The protons ? The neutrons of the oxygen atoms ? The electrons ? Energy is emitted therefore some mass is lost. I appreciate your interest. ...Dr.Syntax Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedREPLY: This is what some of the different wikipedia articles say : 1.mass and energy are the same thing 2.when energy leaves a system it takes it`s mass with it 3.kinetic energy can be converted to particles that have mass I think I am starting to understand all this, starting to only. Dr. Syntax

REPLY: I am no physicist, when you say a proton combines with an electron are you describing the creation of a neutron or do you mean a proton combines with an electron to create a hydrogen atom ? I appreciate your help with this. ...Dr.Syntax

Some one went to a lot of trouble to create this helpful database. ...Dr.Syntax