silkworm

Good question starbug1, I have no idea. I figure this movement is no problem at all in the increasingly secular western Europe, which sounds like heaven to me about now. There's more ugliness to come, but I think it will be brief. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/science/sciencespecial2/22evolution.html?ex=1292907600&en=fe8e7e36ec0997c8&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Sorry, there was a weird hiccup and it posted that message twice.

Yes, it will just take you longer. The voltage is not inconsequential, you still need it, but you don't need a whole lot of it to get results. You seem to have it figured out. It has made sense to you. Pay attention to Faraday, this is his thing. Also look up Humphry Davy, he's somewhat of a wildman who discovered/isolated 6 (I think, maybe more and all in 1808) elements by electrolysis. Mainly they were group 1 and 2 metals. I'm pretty sure you don't have to complete the circuit or use an electrolyte solution, in fact I think either would be counterproductive when decomposing water. Also if your doing this also be cautious with the O2 and the H2. I have no clue what is happening to your carbon rods, but if you haven't boiled your water it should have some CO2 already dissolved into it. In case you don't know, this whole area is callled electrochemistry and it's good to see you're taking an interest in it, nobody seems too but it's pretty cool.

All standards should be set by scientists democratically elected from other scientists as publically elected officials obviously do not know what they're doing and are easily lobied.

So am I just supposed to pretend to ignore the fact that ID is promoting creationism by a sneaky method or can I call it what it is? It's a creationist movement, even if all creationists are not involved. It is what it is and that is its base. It has morphed into a more legally friendly argument but it has the same agenda, and that is one of a creationist movement. This is turning into strike two for the movement to teach creationism in America's schools. I'm wondering if there is something legally more friendly that I should be worried about. Sorry Helix, I misinterpreted. I thought you may be a creationist who says evolution is God's method.

Don't use AC, you'll get yourself killed. Just use DC and make sure you know what you're using. I think there is a reason why AC doesn't work, but I can't remember why. The electrodes touching should complete the circuit, but I don't know what the terminology is. If the sides weren't touching you'd produce both, one at each electrode. How do you know? Are you saying that you're massing it or is it noticeably deformed? Inert electrodes are used to keep them out of the product, because they're needed only to supply the DC. I don't understand what you're trying to make, but understand that H2 is will effect combustion and providing a spark for it will make H2O with explosive violence. Combustion reactions have water vapor as a product, and its production is very exothermic, so be careful.

It all has to do with sublevels and why there are hiccups across the periodic table in general. Nitrogen has an atomic number of 7' date=' so it has 7 electrons, 2 of which are used in the 1s valence shell. There are 5 valence electrons, 2 of which are used in the 2s sublevel, and 1 each in the 2px, 2py, and 2pz sublevels (Aufbau Principle). Adding an electron at this point is pairing an unpaired electron in a p-orbital and for that to happen energy is required to overcome the repulsion. It's the same principle in group 2 as it is for Nitrogen, only here the addition is to its ns orbital (n being it's highest level achieved).

Wow, I had no idea this madness was still going on. I'm glad I missed it. That's very observant. I may have been the first one he got to with his second post on his original thread where it was obvious he had not read any of the responses.

I'd look at Faraday's Laws. This website claims to be a website explaining Faraday's Laws that is appropriate for HS students: http://www.ausetute.com.au/faradayl.html. I'd explain them myself but I have no idea where you are in your understanding and a complete explaination is beyond my efforts right now. However, if you try to learn it and have some questions I'm sure we'll be happy to help. If you don't get anything from that site just go to any library and look up Michael Faraday, he's a superstar in the science world and made an enormous contribution to mankind with his work. Carbon is not a metal, however a few allotropes of it are known to conduct electricity, especiallly graphite (pencil lead). But this is a property of the hyperconjugation of the allotrope and not the element itself. For the love of Edison, please use DC and know what you're running before you get yourself hurt. DC is used in the proper procedure of electrolysis anyway. What do you mean by carbon rods? Something like this? . How did you know it was hydrogen? What do you mean the carbon has melted? 1. Appears to be electrolysis (if you're decomposing water). 2. http://www.webelements.com, stay to the left of B, Si, As, Te, At, and you'll be okay. 3. The metal doesn't need to melt to react with oxygen. The metals on the far left are very reactive with oxygen and the heavier ones react explosively with water. In electrolysis you don't have to worry about this, you're using electricity to physically seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen. 4. Faraday's Laws. 5. I don't know what you're using right now, but platinum and pallidium are the electrodes of choice do to their inertness. 6. Faraday's Laws. I'd also research electroplating if I were you, as it appears it might be what you're interested in.

All I know is that ID is a creationist movement. I do believe that there are good people that happen to be Christians and also believe in creation, but also have the sense to stay out of areas that either they know nothing about or have nothing to do with them because they've chosen to ignore it. I also do well to not confuse the origin of life on this planet and the way that life changes, but that's a point lost in the movement. I also know that this defiant and ridiculous attitude they're promoting against valid scientific education is not good for any of us, and if by some miracle they do get what they're after we're on a slippery slope to the dark ages. I also know it is very far from uncommon for anthropology professors to receive death threats and other harassment exclusively from the demographic I'm talking about, and I know one personally and he's obviously been pretty freaked out and defensive for it for years. Do you think he deserves that sort of hassle for doing his job and research that may end up helping us all significantly? Are you aware of any other demographic that participates in violence against scientists and obstructing science? I'm very interested in these people never gaining any ground against science, and to be honest I was very worried that the law would not be considered in these matters until the decision yesterday because of the way my beloved America has gone since 2000. The point of this thread is that, ironically, their argument has evolved and will evolve further, but I can't think of a form for it to take that isn't incredibly desperate and from where I sit at this moment with the non-denominational ID movement appears to be the best shot they can make and I was wondering if others have any thoughts of another way they may be coming. Now, I have no problem at all with ecoli. I think he's intelligent and he doesn't appear to want to harm himself for being a scientist. He has a religious belief, and although it is one that I don't share, him and I agree on one very important thing: ID does not belong anywhere near a science classroom. That's the only thing that is important. Now to somehow claim that I am out of touch with creationists and the ID movement and their affects I'll have to ask you to please look slightly over to your left under the silkworm and next to where it says Location, it says Kansas. It was here that I was born and raised, and, although it appears the ID movement is in the minority here, in small town communities like the one I grew up in evolution and all natural science are treated very harshly. This attitude of dismissing science for being evil is contagious in these communities as well because it provides excuses for not paying attention or trying, and it creates more ignorant people, so in the end everyone gets screwed. I have personal experience there, this sort of movement has robbed me personallly, and you could say that I do have a vandetta. But that does not make me unreasonable, I just want them to stop and I'm wondering if there is something coming that I need to brace for that I don't see yet. Also, with this ID movement the term belief for many of the followers of the movement is used very very loosely. Being personally related to and knowing many others closely it has been my experience that these people do not believe anything except for what they are told and participate for nothing more than the insurance policy for paradise and to hold on to a fictional way of life, and they don't care or think about much at all. We do have dedicated whackos that go here and there, but when you're dealing with one who is using canned phrases you can be most certain that he is defending a way of life that he feels is either missing or in jeopardy and not his actual position. With that said, I believe that this person has a right to his delusion, as long as he leaves me and those I care about out of it. I'm not saying that about ecoli or Helix or any other creationist, but I am saying it about the recycled culture that supports the ID movement.

Well then maybe it should have been Bill Clinton, but I'm just saying that it was making its impact on everyone then instead of in the 1970s.

I think it would be worthwile if we try to predict the next step in the creationist movement, so we can brace ourselves and protect America's children from growing up to be ignorant. Where do they go from here? It started out as the Bible and God made the world in 6 days to some unknown intelligent creature designing things because everything is too complicated to have happened by accident, which seems to me like their best shot at weaseling their way into science classrooms. But I'm worried I'm missing something. And ideas? The only thing they can do to make it a sure evolution is really challenged is if they all become biologists and really do find a better way to explain things, but that is both highly unlikely and not going to give creationist friendly answers.

Thankfully, by the events of yesterday (the ruling) the ID movement may be able to finally be filed in the trash can, so we can finally ignore ID and stop being so nice to it by showering it with undeserved attention.

I'm not saying that you will destroy the mass of an object by taking it to 0K, I'm saying that you can't take an object to 0K because it has mass. You can't destroy mass and you can't achieve 0K on an object. It can only be done on nothing.

What do you have to work with (home kitchen/Wal-Mart, actual scientific equipment)? What type of chamber are we talking about? What type of process are we talking about?

It is the lowest possible temperature because it is the temperature of nothing. The lowest possible number that is a positive number line (just like the Kelvin scale) is 0 because it is the number of nothing.

That's why I'm sticking with Dover, Pennsylvania. Probably whoever's work has had a new impact to the world on the year is the way I'd go. Like, whoever developed GPS (which I have no idea from which it came) would have been a great nominee for last year.

I am in agreement with swansont on the Nobel Prize winners.

And if you truly have nothing its temperature is 0K. If there's nothing there's no motion, no mass, no energy. It is 0K. Yeah' date=' I'm serious. It shouldn't be scary. Lord Kelvin developed the Kelvin scale and projected 0K to be where all gases condense, but it is also the theoretical point at which all molecular motion stops. It shouldn't be scary because 0K is like 0 on a number line of only positive numbers. It's just nothing. The scale can go up infinitely though, to whatever the temperture would be of a single particle subjected to all of the energy in the universe. You can't make an object 0K because you'd have to destroy its mass in the process, which is not possible. http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/kelvin.html http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/history/kelvin.html http://www.enchantedlearning.com/chemistry/glossary/Kelvin.shtml It's 0K. It's the base. It's the temperature of nothing. It's the lowest temperature there is and there can be no lower because it is the temperature of nothing. You can't make something 0K because it is the temperature of nothing. 0K only can exist in Nowheresville, outside the reach of the electromagnetic radiation (which has been expanding at the speed of light (the theoretical physical limit for velocity in the universe) ever since the Big Bang (if you dig that theory)). Nowheresville is still a part of nature because it is with us, but not a part of our universe because it is outside of the reach of electromagnetic radiation and we can never go there (or even measure it) without making it part of our own universe, thus eliminating its nothingness and putting into a state where it will never be nothing again (unless we find a way to evacuate it without taking forever, which I have no clue as to how). Hopefully I'm expressing myself well enough.

I was thinking about that too, Phi for All, but there is no way any other decision should have come down (though I do admit I was worried). Should you reward a man for simply not making his own trial a miscarriage of justice or should you just give him a handshake or a pat on the butt for doing his job?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_sc/tap_water That's a related story about contaminants in US drinking water. Primarygun, please don't drink your water. That sounds frightening. Is it noticeably a different color? Does it have a pH significantly away from 7? Is it flammable?

Halleluah! I also started a thread on this here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17211 Did they publish the entire decision there? I tried to use your link to see but it wouldn't work.

Here's the link to the BBC story for those interested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm