JaKiri

That's different. ENTIRELY different. If you've got a reaction, you should always cancel down numbers to their lowest possible integer states (occasionally, it's convention to express them as fractions as well, expressing the ratio to the combusting/reacting chemical (well, the one you're testing)), not doing it is wrong. This is different from, say, cancelling H2O2 to HO. That's not a ratio of reactions. If you had only one molecule of butanol, that ratio of oxygen atoms would still be sufficient to make it undergo complete combustion.

That's coming from the speakers, and would come from the speakers if they weren't connected to any radio (eg. my PC speakers do it). Mobile phone emissions are reasonably powerful, but they're not THAT powerful, and 'penetrating' isn't the right word anyway.

The main problem with guns is precisely the opposite; when there's familiarity, and familiarity breeds a lack of respect. Furthermore, guns have the potential to kill when others don't. What if a midgit attacked me with a candlestick? It'd be pretty simple to beat him off. A midgit with a gun is another matter. I'm in favour of banning all weapons that, some point along the way, don't rely on human effort as their power source. So bows are ok (do you know how difficult it is to shoot a bow with any degree of accuracy?), guns are not. And so on. Furthermore, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' (or any of the variations) is pretty limited, because there are quite a lot of accidental deaths with guns. Oh, and to hold the US up as having a lot of gun crime because there are a lot of guns is a fallacy. Canada has a lot of guns, but relatively low gun crime (possibly because they all live hundreds of miles away from eachother).

Different. Benzene rings, for instance, can display some properties linked with a metallic bonding method, but it's a different structure entirely.

I do. So did my chemistry supervisor, and many other people. Anyway, they're NOT inert, so it's a pretty stupid forced rename.

It depends what you mean by a binomial distribution. Obviously, you can make it into one ('Red cars' or 'Not red cars'), but it's not inherently one.

Metals are generally classified by their free electron sea. Saying that metals must be solid is wrong (Mercury, melted metals). Similarly 'grey' (gold), dense and high melting point. You can express things in terms of their ionic character, but that's not exactly saying 'how metallic' a thing is. Anyway, metallic isn't an analogue state; it either is a metal or it isn't.

That's not an explanation of the phenomenon, it's a statement that it exists. Basically, the most stable form of an atom (ion) is one in which all the electron shells are either entirely full or entirely empty; this is why Nobel Gasses are so unreactive. All reactions are an elements 'attempt' (there's no motive involved, it's just to do with energy levels; it's like a ball falling off a shelf; the most stable form is the one with the least energy, and it's always trying to give the excess energy off [by reacting, or falling off the shelf, respectively]) to get full (or at least, more stable) electron configurations. To use the example of groups VII and I that you gave (halides, earth metals), the simplest way they can get similar to the structure of a nobel gas is to gain an electron (if you're a halide) or lose an electron (if you're a group 1 metal); this is pretty obvious from looking at the periodic table. The more electron/proton pairs the atom has, the less force is acting on the outer electrons, because of an effect called 'Shielding'. Basically, the inner electrons are 'getting in the way' of the positive electric field coming out of the nucleus, so the more shells there are, the less the outer ones are attracted. Now think about what would be most accepting to a new electron; it's obviously going to be the smallest atoms, because they have much less shielding, and attract more. If you think about giving electrons away, the easiest way to do it will be with a large atom, where there are lots of inner shielding electrons. Now lets combine that with the bonding pattern above. The halides want to TAKE an electron, and it gets easier to take an electron the smaller the atom is, and harder the larger it is (because of the increased shielding the larger the atom is, remember). Hence, the most reactive halides are at the TOP of the group, and the least reactive are at the BOTTOM. If we look at the group 1 metals, they want to GIVE an electron. It's easiest to give an electron when you're a big atom, and there's more shielding. Hence, the most reactive group one metals are at the BOTTOM, and the least reactive are at the TOP.

You can have the heart ring.

It's like a mixture of James Bond and Captain Planet, the last two posts.

One of the effects of global warming is the freezing of britain. Disruption of the gulf stream and that.

Even ignoring that this is irrelevent (see greg's post), they're not. The quantum foam (I prefer 'fuzz' personally) being what it is. Why did you say it was then? [edit] You still haven't started on the rest of my rather enormous post.

It's generally expressed as COOH, not CO2H, btw.

Part of the problem would be the resistance. The hamster would have to work much harder to get it going, or to keep it spinning.

The prosecution rests.

Actually, it's subtlely different, because it's been demonstrated that there may be subtle differences in neurochemistry, in some cases.

Frankly, that's like saying GR is 'Just a theory' (dismissively). There's a LOT encompassed by the statements above, as I said in my post previously. You're also dismissing the possibility of AI, and a lot of computer scientists would like to have a word with you. Gone to rather extreme nihilism have we? If 'recognising pictures' is your criterion for consciousness, then all animals are conscious. Then a computer is conscious. Furthermore, I don't particularly see why 'all pictures are illusions'. Is it because there's an exchange particle involved? In that case, ALL force is an illusion, and ALL THINGS are conscious, because they are capable of experiencing this illusion. That, to me, is a rather nonsense definition of consciousness. Furthermore, as an argument, it's fairly useless, and shares similarities with the 'What if we're inside a big pc!!!!!!!!' argument. Occam's Razor precludes that, and Occam's Razor will probably preclude your argument too. You're contradicting yourself, and at both ends your argument is incorrect.

Fark is pretty sucky, and it's just an old old joke with a bad photoshop attached.

I know. I've no idea why people think it's an upshot of rotation (as you appear to be assuming) rather than a prerequisite of orbital motion.

The bevel itself is a product of gravity, duder. It wouldn't happen if you spun it in micro/zero gravity.

I thought the current thinking was that we CAN'T terraform mars, because the solar wind isn't deflected, so the atmosphere will be ripped off.

Yes. See: GR and SR.

Whut?

I was more suggesting the end of laplacian determinism duder, not random interactions in the brain.

Ignoring that it was scientists that proved it in the first place (european religion was still going with the flat earth model), all rest frames are equally valid, so in that sense the earth IS stationary at the center of the universe. Science will some day stop GR and QM being in conflict. That's not an irrational statement, and I don't think anyone IS ignoring the laws of physics. Laplacian determinism is SPECIFICALLY DENIED by QM, not SUPPORTED. QM states that there is no way of predicting with certainty any outcome from any interaction (basically). Actually, that's finding high energy PARTICLES. For instance, the graviton (to actually construct it, as it were) is theorised to be a high energy particle. However, that doesn't mean that lower energy interactions are free of the effects of gravity. Furthermore, you're also ignoring that research is also going on into LOW ENERGY SYSTEMS. The whole of QM Is in flux (boom boom), just as the whole of science is. I said it in my previous post, and I'll restate it here: The standard model of Quantum Mechanics has flaws. As for the rest of the post, you're just waffling on with mindless speculation, and a nice piece of misdirection at the end.