mississippichem

You're making the chlorine in situ? That's two hazardous reactions going on at the same time, brave.

We've all heard the cubic time, cubic god, language and education are evil stuff before, 7th. We dismissed it as nonsense last time because the guy presenting it kept talking in circles and kept trying to redefine well established concepts and definitions. All your arguments sound disturbingly similar, you've been here before haven't you? Klaplunk?

Sodium bicarbonate is already present in many of the foods we eat. Taking large amounts of sodium bicarbonate will only through off your digestive pH balance. Cancer is not a fungus. It is a malignant and rapidly spreading DNA sequence that causes cells to function abnormally. Most effective chemotherapy drugs somehow involve intercalation and alteration of cancerous DNA.

I've always been told by professors that borosilicate glassware reaches its "softening" point around 800-830 C. So I wouldn't try it. The titanium dioxide will still be solid at this temperature, but I still wouldn't want a room full of chlorine (the product will also be a nasty hot, volatile liquid). I bet there's a way to catalyze this reaction at a lower temperature... EDIT: 830 C, not 330 C, sorry

Chemical equilibrium problems are often "rounded off" for first year chemistry classes in the name of simplicity. Often, activity coefficients are neglected altogether. This is a reasonable approximation in an aqueous solution of simple salts that is not highly concentrated.

Yes, I don't even think it makes a prediction at all, most less a testable one.

No, that's just what science is. Confirming that your first, and seemingly central, hypothesis is viable before moving any further.

It is a major contaminant in many of our lakes and rivers with concentrations reported near 55 M !

Whatever base system we use doesn't matter. "3" represented in binary is "10" but that symbol still represents this amount of dots (...). All mathematical operations can be carried out in binary, hexadecimal or whatever, the end result is always the same and can be converted back to base 10. You can do addition and subtraction with your fingers and toes even, try it. Notice that some calculators have buttons to convert between bases. P.S. Your going to have to try harder than this man. EDIT: typo

Yeah, a Grignard reagent is essentially a masked carbanion stabilized by the highly argued Shleck equilibrium. The pKa for a carbanion is huge. People even have trouble studying them because they're half-lives are often times shorter than [math] sp^2 [/math] carbocations. Some Grignards are so basic they will rip off alkenyl or even vinyllic hydrogens in some substrates.

Yes I have, very observant. This is what I mean when I talk about logic. If god, love rules, or any other hypothesis for that matter, is not in line with recorded observation or in line with what we know to be within the realm of reality, the hypothesis is incorect. In order for you to claim that all rules stem from love, you have to present clear concise evidence from multiple sources, maths, logical proofs, whatever. Hypothesis that are correct will withstand even the most vigorous attacks. When you talk about believing and faith, that is fine; but remember, they are just that, faith. You can't try and present evidence for your faith because faith is acceptance of a concept without viable proof or evidence. This is a science forum, yes this is the religion sub-forum, but this is a tough, sceptical crowd. When someone says they just went to the shoping mall, we ask to see the receipt for verification . We have no problem with you holding your own beliefs, thats the beauty of modern society! We, the sciency types, only "believe" things that have been tested, predicted, and observed an obnoxious number of times. Yes it is a wonderful basis for judging the validity of an argument, you're really sharp today. But no I wasn't using circular logic. Here is an example of circular logic: You: God is always loving...All rules come from god and are loving. Me: But what about all those killing's commanded by God in the old testament You: they must stem from love because god is always loving. You are using the original premise to rebuttal any debate surrounding the original premise. Common sense, that nasty word again, would lend that conclusion to even the most thick skulled of neanderthals. Don't take this the wrong way man, I just think you are answering our finese and intricant arguments with blunt generalizations.

If your already familiar with pH, common monoatomic and polyatomic ions, then do some reading on acid/base equilibrium, as well as solubility product constants. They would be a good place to start in the understanding of acid/base chemistry. What do you already understand? I'll try to post a very general explanation on the forum.

If you failed to apply some principle of logic, then your hypothesis would be flawed from the start. When I say principles of logic, I don't mean that in the formal academic sense of the word, I really just mean common sense. From reading the Bible it is blatantly obvious that the god of the old testament is a vengeful, anthropomorphic dictator. The God of the new testament appears more loving and forgiving. I'm really just arguing that all rules do not stem from love, because the old testament is a document full of genocide and hatred. Whether it's murder or some other form of killing doesn't matter. I think there are some justified wars, but God in the old testament on multiple occasions ordered the mass killing off of societies. That is not love by anyone's definition. Even though love is such a nebulous and arbitrary concept. If gods love is not applicable to our modern society and norms, then is it really relevant at all? God's love is supposedly equal for everyone according to the Christian belief. So why did god pick the jews to be his executioners? The bottom line here is not in any of my above arguments. The take home message is that it is impossible to determine whether or not any rules stem from love. Love is such an ill defined concept, and regardless of your religious belief I think we can all agree that quantitative evidence for the existence of a deity at all is non-existant at best.

hydrogen has a valence 1s orbital which fits nicely between the two B:2p orbitals. Chlorine has a set of p-orbitals as it's valence shell, the geometry doesn't work out right to form the 3c-2e bond. Plus boron and chlorine have a large electronegativity difference, and the bond between them posses significant ionic character. Are you refering to Wade's rules?

Correction noted and appreciated; if I only spoke Hebrew...I'll add it to the list of things to do.

If our worldviews were the same we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. My mind is open, but not so much so that my brain falls out. I feel as though this statement was made as a buffer to allow you greater margin of error in your argument. The principles of logic still apply, especially when our world view's are different. I meant nothing of substance by this. Only conversational "filler" language, sorry for the misunderstanding. Doesn't this negate the argument of God's perfection and divinity? If God is perfect, then he must be static; because to change would imply deviance from perfection, or that he wasn't perfect to begin with. Though I am now a staunch atheist, I was quite a devout Christian at one point in my past, and I am very familiar with the Bible. The argument for a dynamic God completely contradicts all the other pillars of Christian theology: -There is no variation or shadow of turning with God. There is absolutely no change with God. -James 1:17 -God's word is settled in heaven; it will not change. -Psalm 119:89 By killing them? Here is a short passage, also from Deuteronomy, [same time period/social norms] where God specifically says not to kill... -You shall not kill. -Deuteronomy 5:17 But in the passage I mentioned in my last post, he is directly instructing the Israelites to kill people. He even says to kill the livestock, who I assume did nothing wrong. I just can't see, no matter what the social norms, how this even remotely stems from love. Assuming it does come from love, how can the opposite statement (don't kill) also come from love?

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." -Deuteronomy 13:13-19 Needimprovement, you use Biblical quotes for many of your arguments. Please reconcile this Biblical passage, dictating a rule from "God", with your hypothesis that "all rules stem from love". In the realm of things that matter: How can you say that the rule of not dividing by zero is derived from love? How about conservation of lepton number? I think a quick thought about some of the rules of science and mathematics, which is the focus of this forum, will lead you to the conclusion that your assertion makes just enough sense to actually be a question, but not enough to be evaluated in any formal or emperical way.

Fact is a dirty word. One can always argue that something wasn't tested enough times or under extreme enough conditions. Theories are as close to fact as we need. Models that fit mathematically with all observed data thus far and can make predictions about future data is good enough for me. The first law of thermodyamics could fall apart tomorrow with some groundbreaking experiment. But I highly doubt it because that would contradict a massive body of tried and tested research that happens to make good logical and mathematical sense. So I'll go ahead and say the first law of thermodynamics reaches a "limit" as x approaches fact .It will never become fact, but it gets infintesimaly closer everytime it is tested.

Science can never answer why people keep looking for the questions science can't answer when all the "answerable" science questions haven't been answered yet.

One of these reactions is an equilibrium process, i.e. reversible. The other is not.

For number 1: Just use the combined gass law. Which of these reactions results in a reduction in n (number of moles). This problem assumes that the initial pressure is 1 atm, I guess? #2 reactions with K values > 1 are product favored, reaction with K values < 1 are product favored. If K=1 what would that imply?

Don't forget that [math]K_w =[K_a ][K_b ] [/math]. So Ka and Kb must be inversely proportional.

The anion has more "electron-density" to contribute to an electron deficient 3-center, two electron bond. Just to get an idea about the 3-center, 2-electron bond. This bond is considered a [math] \pi [/math] type bond, but is not the traditional [math] 2p\pi [/math] type that is expected. It is the result of two [math] sp^2 [/math] hybrid lobes overlaping with a hydrogen [math] 1s [/math]. It is still considered a [math] \pi [/math] bond because of the single horizontal nodal polane, its horizontal mirror plane and u-parity.

Intermolecular forces are usually negligible in the gas phase, but at high temeratures, pressures and mico-volumes, the behaviour of gases deviates significantly from the ideal gas equation. To answer your question: No, not exactly, but the enthalpy of vapoization (given by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation) accounts for the overcoming of van-der Waals, and or hydrogen-bonding interactions depending on the specific liquid. Look up Born-Haber Cycles in chemical thermodynamics

Yeah look out for that. There's a whole list of pH snake oil scams online here quackwatch.com. Whats funny is half of these charlatans encourage lowering your body's pH while the other half encourage you to lower it. They are probably just trying to sell books, as you said.