mississippichem

Show some of your work, I think I can help here. A full p1d1 microstate table is going to be a pain though .

I wasn't talking about leaching. I was actually taking about the stability of carbon-carbon bonds in aqueous solution when compared to silicon-silicon bonds. Plastic containers are perfectly safe for food and drink as they are made from polymers of carbon compounds. I'm sure a discrete As-Si bond would be a very weak one. I imagine the two can be combined or blended as a sort of metalloid alloy or blend. People do similar stuff all the time in the semiconductor industry. Not so sure what you mean here.

Not giving credit to the source is the same as claiming that it was your original work. Perhaps you were unaware. That's alright. Now you know.

LOL indeed. Here is a list of adiabadic flame temperatures: Wikipedia: adiabadic flame temps. They have even "light fuel oil" listed in the 2000's C.

In the US. "AP" stands for "advanced placement", meaning a high-school course that is closer to what one would experience in a first year university course.

Sounds like a refugee camp to me. I have no kids but I do have a woman, in-town family, and a long list of Christmas parties to dodge. Im in.

I don't have any suggestions as of now. I'mJust posting to say that I second your sentiment here. Last year I tutored high school math (mostly algebra, trig and easy differential calculus) and ran into similar problems. High schools students never seemed to get any of the geometric arguments behind the trig functions and never seemed to grasp how the inverse trig functions output angles. Multiplying fractions and rules for manipulating roots, logs, and exponents seem to be lost on blank faces. I believe these mathematics inadequacies are some of the major contributing factors to the physics/chemistry education crisis. Calculators are great but I do think they contribute to intellectual laziness when introduced too early. Many fraction operations and simple algebraic manipulations can even be done faster by old fashioned "head power". I understand using a calculator to multiply/divide 6-digit numbers or evaluate nasty transcendentals (like [math] \cos\frac{37\pi}{114} [/math]), but using one to do arithmetic operations on simple fractions is ridiculous.

The properties or biological uses of magnetite can't be used as proof of your "magnetic atom". The ferromagnetism of such materials is the result of long range order in the spin states of the unpaired electrons in paramagnetic atoms/ions [in a lattice] and not some inherent property of atoms in general. No alternative atomic model is required as these phenomena are already very well understood.

The problem with hypothetical silicon based life is that Si-Si sigma bonds are easily hydrolyzed (attacked by water or other -OH nucleophiles). Also there is trouble with the stability of Si=Si double bonds. They tend not to form unless there are strongly electron withdrawing groups on the silicon atoms. People have isolated tetrephenylsilenes but not without much effort. Yet another problem with any purposed silicon biochemistry is the strength (and superb kinetic stability) of the unsubstituted silicon-oxygen bond and the tendency of silicates to exist as amorphous network solids that have horrendous solubility in any reasonable solvent. These are just done chemical issues that come to mind. From a genetics standpoint (I'm probably the world's worst at biology) I'm sure the are a plethora of reasons why this won't happen. I am a bit of an enthusiast for hypothetical alternative biochemistries, it's very fun to speculate about. But I doubt many of these speculations will ever come to fruition because there are so many things that we don't understand about our own real biochemistry yet.

Your website is fraught with unit errors. A joule times a kilogram divided by a joule is not a second, it's a kilogram. You can't define time in units of mass. There are many other issues with your use of physics terminology and mathematics but lets take this one step at a time.

Is this thread really converging to a consensus!? Never thought I'd see the day when that happened on the internet . We seem to have a decent membership here. Yeah us!

Mississippichem is still very confused by all this. Though he realizes that this thread is in "The Lounge" and therefore content appropriate, he worries that cyclops will continue starting threads like this and not consolidate them. Mississippichem thought that Odysseus already took care of cyclops in ancient times. Hail Poseidon.

Physics terms have very specific meanings that end up having implications for the mathematics. Swansont is not being picky, he is talking physics.

Evidently neither does cyclops.

The paper by Jones claiming to find thermitic nanocomposite is perhaps the worst piece of analytical chemistry literature I've ever laid eyes on. He displays no knowledge of proper differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) technique, a technique that I have much experience with. I can detail these issues if need be. Basically he claims that he found evidence of a thermitic reaction taking place during DSC but cannot claim such under the conditions he employed. His microscopy work proves absolutely nothing. I work in nanomaterials and have experience with similar methodology. He didn't analyze the rest of the debris samples either. Only the suspected thermite. That is dishonest on multiple levels. His elemental analysis only proves that there is aluminum and iron in buildings, that is hardly surprising. Even if he found a huge piece of thermite and confirmed it, I wouldn't care. You can't user thermite to cut verticle columns, gravity pulls the liquid iron down not sideways. Anyway, the amount of thetmite needed to cut hundreds if steel I-beams would be in the hundreds if tons, reference upon request.

The light from the far end of the stick takes approximately the same amount of time to get to earth. Think about that for a moment.

This discussion would be difficult to have without electricity. Mail me a reply by horse, courier, and wooden ship. I'll get back to you sometime In the next six months.

Thinking outside the box is unscientific. We are only allowed to generalize our thoughts to a bigger box. It's creativity in a straight-jacket as a great scientist once put it.

I'm no medicinal chemist. However, I think I can safely assume that organic chemistry and bio-chemistry are good things to study if you are interested in the drug design/development business. Pharmaceutical chemistry is not so much a discipline as it is an application of organic and biochemistry. If you want some good, though informal, reading on the topic, read this blog regularly: In the Pipeline The guy is a great blogger and regularly talks about issues in the pharmaceutical industry such as employment, politics, and the general state of the industry.

Intramolecular reactions are usually zero order. Think about it, increasing the concentration of the sole reactant [your beta-holahydrin there] doesn't increase the collision frequency. So the rate law is just, [math] -\frac{d[A]}{dt}=k[/math] and after integrating we get, [math] [A]_{f}=-kt+[A]_{i} [/math] If you plot this as a concentration versus time graph, you should get a straight line with a negative slope with respect to reactant concentration. You could probably track this reaction with NMR or FTIR. Good question though.

Cyclops brought his exciting tale to SFN but no one understood the context...feeling defeated cyclops explained to mississippichem what the heck he was taking about.

What about the cold fusion hoax? Pons and Fleischman were ridiculed for their nonsense research and for going public with findings before peer review. Had they not been publicly ridiculed by the mainstream physics community, many non-scientist citizens could've been confused by quack physics. Their results were not reproducible and their intellectual ethics were questionable. Their conduct deserved ridicule and it served to the advancement of science.

Squaring also gives you real values but not necessarily positive. The purpose of the squaring (or multiplying by the complex conjugate which is more general) is so you can always get a positive and real probability. After normalizing, if we want to integrate with respect to position to get a probability we need a positive real value. Even more formally the wavefunction would be in terms of vectors and we would be using an inner product with the hermetian conjugate IIRC instead of squaring or multiplying by the complex conjugate and integrating. In the case of real valued wave functions, you can just square it because the imaginary parts are zero.

I believe the question is whether or not you can prove that gravity doesn't have an infinite range. You are challenging about three hundred years of fundamental (perhaps the most fundamental) physics. The burden of proof is on you. I suggest that you take a course on plain good ole' Newtonian mechanics before trying to re-write the laws if motion. This is not meant to be insulting but genuinely helpful. Show one example of where the force of gravity coming from a mass abruptly drops off to zero. Good luck