mississippichem

Upon thinking about it for a second. It's worth mentioning that even in the case where the distribution of electrons is not spherically centro-symmetric, [math]( \ell>0 )[/math]. It still has centro-symmetry about some plane or axis. So the net force acting on a proton going to zero, what you said, would in fact hold in all cases for a single atom. Obvious but interesting.

I don't know much about the strong nuclear force. But I know that it is WAY stronger than the Coulombic force over very short distances, distances on the inter-nuclear scale. Remember that Coulombic forces also drop off as [math] \frac {1}{r^{2}} [/math]. So the Coulombic proton-proton repulsion contributes a lot more to opposing the strong nuclear force than the Coulombic proton-electron attraction does. That, and as John Cuthber said, electrons are much lighter than nucleons.

True many are expensive, but this guy_ _is using an enzyme from a livestock animal which brings the cost down to about $3 kg! I think the key is to find promiscuous enzymes (the ones that will allow many types of substrates to dock, ooh yeah sexy ), that come from the useless parts of animals we are already killing...pigs, cows, chickens. Then it's just literally a matter of a walk down to the meat plant followed by a nice grinding and a little extraction (if you don't mind a few isozymes in there). Hypervalent_Iodine did you have a look at that de-fluorination paper above? Read it, the mechanism is beautiful.

[math] \frac {grams}{\frac {grams}{mole}} = moles [/math]

I read that blog post on carbon based curiosities about this a while back as well. Many people blur the lines of what was originally defined as click chemistry but I don't think it matters. Yes, I agree that anything involving benzynes is not "click chemistry". But I think the point of click chemistry is still achieved wherever one can do reactions at mild "physiological-ish" conditions and at the same time have high atom economy and stereo-selectivity. I've noticed there's this notion around that enzymatic catalysis doesn't work in non-aqueous solvents. I think its utter BS. You read a lot in the literature where people talk about potential enzymatic routes but then in the same sentence worry about having to use water as a solvent. Though, a quick Scifinder search reveals that many enzymatic reactions have been conducted in many organic solvents and with high selectivity. I think rational enzymatic catalysis design is the future of click chemistry. I really loved this recent article from JACS:Mapping the Reaction Coordinate of Enzymatic Defluorination, Chan et. al It's not a click chemistry article per se, but if we want click chemistry to become purely "click" we are going to need more work like this! Hydrolyzing C-F at room temperature in water...yes please. Enzymes can be cheap as well, it depends. I also know a guy who has recently found that he can enatio-tune a certain esterase by playing with mixed solvent ratios; up to >90% ee S or R depending on the mixed solvent ratio!!!! I don't want to divulge too many details but its quite interesting. How much more "click" can you get?

With all respect, isn't that just a rationalization for you to believe what you know is false? By definition, god's are supernatural beings. If we don't believe in the supernatural, and we think that every occurrence in the universe is resultant from physical phenomena, then there is no need to evoke the existence of a god. Why not cut out the middle man so to speak? Why not tell a child not to be afraid of closet monsters because closet monsters are not real! That gives the child a 100% assurance that he is safe from said monster. Why create an imaginary being to comfort a child who is scared of another imaginary being? Bring a strict materialist you guys might simply disagree but the way I see it is: a being with no evidence of existence, and isn't logically required to exist doesn't exist. Trying to justify the existence of a god with a nebulous, transcendental mindset doesn't accomplish any intellectual work. You can make anything seem to exist by blurring the lines of it's definition enough. If I allow horses to fall under the definition of unicorn [hey, close enough right? ], then unicorns certainly exist. If I expand the definition of god to mean any thing, then I've just ensured that my "meaninglessly" defined god exists by default. If I haven't caught the correct connotation from your post, I'm sorry, please correct my reasoning if so.

No one is hiding any free energy technology. Science and technology don't work like that. It would be insanely difficult to obtain explicit physics knowledge [especially concerning free energy], and at the same time supress that knowledge from the public. Most research these days involves multiple PhD's in multiple labs at multiple schools or businesses. No one has access to any knowledge of physics that a lay person doesn't have access to (though they might not understand it). Take the atomic bomb for example, in the US, we spent a lot of resources trying to keep the Manhattan Project (design of the A-bomb) under wraps. Well, it turns out that the Nazis were already working on a nuke; and we just barely beat them to it. I don't think that was from espionage either, that's just where atomic physics was going at that time. You can't stop the progress or spread of knowledge. If anyone develops an over-unity device [don't hold your breath, it ain't happenin'], then rest assured it won't stay secret for long. Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories for a reason... Tesla did some cool stuff as an inventor but in the grand scheme I agree that he is over-rated as a scientist.

Are you referring to a PVT surface..isotherms, adiabats and all that stuff?

I'll concede that point. Well argued.

Agreed. Undergrads not fit to teach a class, but can provide some "expert-layman" insight into the material.

Is that Chuck Norris there at the beginning? Sorry, had to ask.

I don't have much insightful to say here other than I agree, and that "hitting the snooze button" is exactly what we are doing. (Awesome metaphor by the way).

I had an organic chemistry class where after a test, the professor would allow the student with the highest test grade to come up to the board, run over the test, and field any questions. Of course, the professor was there to catch tough questions but I always thought this was a good idea. You have a student who just took said test and made high marks, so at least he has a decent grasp of the material; explaining the problems he just worked last week to his fellow students. I did the review twice and classmates always said that it was nice to get it from a fellow student. I also had a physics professor who said something like: 'you guys gotta tell me which problems are hard. I can't tell, there all easy to me.' Which is obvious but I think is quite telling about the disconnect we sometimes get between PhD's and soon to be BSc's. However, given a very rigorous, difficult class, [like upper tier math classes] I would rather learn from the biggest intellectual heavyweight possible. No matter how cryptic his lecture may be, he is probably an infinite well of knowledge begging to be mined; So I'll bug the hell out of him and pick his brain to get my money's worth out of the class!

What part of quantitative don't you understand?

You also still haven't offered a shred of quantitative evidence of the existence of "aether". Stop hand waving and writing pages of what is essentially an English essay. Post some LaTeX, use standard physics terminology and the like if you want to convince anybody. I don't believe you. There is no evidence of aether. You clearly have no ability or desire to understand the Michelson-Morley experiment; this will severely limit the scope of further debate.

I do the same. Some people are legitimately incorrect, and that is okay; but if you post pseudo-scientific nonsense then your rep. point will reflect such. I also give negative rep to posts that are strongly worded but not well defended. For example: That would be a post of poor quality and would receive neg-rep from me. I've noticed it tends to balance out though, a pretty good post that got negative rep Usually recovers as passers by notice. Bad posts that gained good rep always lose it.

No matter how you try to rephrase it or repackage it, you still haven't overturned the Michelson-Morley experiment. You also still haven't offered a shred of quantitative evidence of the existence of "aether"; yet you seem so sure of the existence of an "aether". How? By some of your definitions, this aether might not even be observable, in which case it is neither here nor there and pretty much comes down to what you want to call the vacuum. I just don't understand why people still believe in the aether; come on man this is very old, very established science. You should join us in the 21st century, its quite nice.

So you have to admit that either God didn't set up the initial conditions, or that the initial conditions God setup are imperfect. Both of which contradict the scripture quoted above:

I think its always good to develop a side subject that you have reasonable knowledge of. A lot of work environments are interdisciplinary these days. If you major in physics, chemistry, or biology its always a good idea to brush up on knowledge of one of the other two. Not to be an expert in both necessarily, but to have a working knowledge in order to communicate with other people and understand to some degree. Taking extra math classes is always a good idea as well.

Do logic and reason tell us the same thing? We should see his perfection in the world around us. But the fact of the matter is, that we don't. The human body itself is full of useless organs [appendix, tonsils and the like], our backs are poorly engineered for upright walking, we are very poor at accessing risk [just watch the news, you would think we were all about to die from terror attacks or nuclear reactor meltdowns]. I don't see much that is perfect about our design as a species, and I don't know by what objective standard you would call anything in the universe perfect. That's the inconvenient thing about claims of perfection. By the definition of perfection, no matter how many "good" things you find; if I find one detail that has one con, then the perfection claim goes out the window. If you want to say that the universe is perfect by a god's standards, then you have no way of confirming that or even producing a shred of objective falsifiable evidence to back it. So basically, we are shooting in the dark here; and even if we hit the target we have no way of knowing whether or not we did.

By dissolving gold in aqua-regia, you've oxidized the gold to chloroauric acid: [ce] HAuCl_{4} [/ce], proper name hydrogentetrachloroaurate{III}. So you need some reducing agent to reduce it back to gold{0}. Or I'm sure it can be done electrolytically somehow. Wikipedia says it can be done by heating dry chloroauric acid to give gold(III) chloride, which can then be reduced by dimethyl sulfide.

[math] \pi [/math] would still have a pattern of repeating "random" decimal places. Irrational numbers are irrational numbers and this can be seen geometrically. I'm not sure, but maybe a base system could be set up that sets [math] \pi = 1 [/math] but I don't know if it can be done and I doubt it would offer much advantage if any. We can already represent irrational numbers symbolically. [math] 2 \cdot \pi = 2\pi [/math]

It's worth adding that the next logical step is that all forces and matter are evil. Gravity for assisting you in smashing Cap'n, the normal force for assisting gravity in the smashing, and electromagnetism for supplying the repulsion that causes the normal force. Science has no more caused the atrocities of war throughout history than anything else. Statistics on the other hand...well that's the cause for much of the evil the world today.

That phenomenon must be gnomic in nature: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/capn/

I think I was editing while you posted. Here's what I meant to add: It works like charm on cento-symmetric molecules with even degeneracy. Whenever we have a molecule that allows certain bond-rotations, and therefore a high degree of mixing or uneven degeneracy. we have to bring the non-adiabatic coupling terms back in .