Genecks

Right, we're looking for element.

I'm still having trouble believing it's carbon, because carbon is used as a resistor and not a "good" conductor of electricity. I'm thinking it's glass.

Graphite. lol..

I was talking to Doll A, and it said "semiconductor!" I was talking to Doll B, and it said, "Possibly non-metal!"

I dunno, 'cause the ppl don't tell me theze thingz. lolz.

Acetone is soluble in these aqueous solutions because they are polar molecules; thus, "like likes like" principle applies.

Wha? What principle? I don't know that principle. Got a term for it? I bet it will be on an exam.

??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenesis

I can't help too much, but I figure that search term might help you a little.

how these conditions may be avoided.

Don't forget to answer that part.

After reading some stuff from a moderator on a forum who said he didn't know linear algebra even though he said he is a "chemist," I've had a hard time believing he could do any chemistry at all. It seemed like a lot of speculation to me.

I'll take a stab at it after 24 hours have passed. I'm quite busy at the moment.

Tip: Work on strengthening the answer and reasons for the answer for each bullet-letter in the meantime. These things have to do with a chain of events.

I don't believe in the big bang. It seems too simple. I didn't like it a decade ago, and I still don't like it. People keep supporting it and piling theories and math, but I can't really envision it logically happening that way. I somehow feel that the time variable is an illusion. I'm not saying time is an illusion, but perhaps the creation of the universe that long ago is an illusion. Makes you wonder when time actually did start, but I have a feeling it's always been constant. Therefore, if time exists, then the universe exists (or part). Depends on what you consider the universe. I know it gets physical, but I think the philosophical boundaries put constraints on all of it.

Sorry, but with quantum mechanics, NONE of the universe is strictly deterministic!

Just another reason I don't find quantum mechanics completely logical. I see too much of it as a social construct. Abstract concepts put into math, later put on abstract math, thus trying to make it deterministic. I figure within 50 years that more of this stuff will be sorted out.

I know I'm not suppose to go into personal views, but I think this is a dimension within a dimension. You could see the outside dimension as independent from this one, which can't be touched by this one. I figure because the universe wants independence or some form of stability. Also, everything within this dimension is contained. Therefore, the other dimension was first. I call this dimension the "crystal-ball dimension." Imagine a crystal ball on white posterboard. Therefore, we would be limited to understanding this universe and we could not figure out the outside universe. We are blocked from understanding it. Of course, I know I will probably be hit for this, but I think there's a way to understand it. If atomist philosophers were correct, that other dimension would be nothingness or something more extreme.

Someone once told me quantum energy is still involved, but I'm not too sure about it all.

hmmm,

 

Now, if I lived in an impoverished country, I think I'd be more worried about things like: eating, staying alive, whether or not I had running water, etc. Rather than how the double helix works.

And I would figure out how to obtain the most protein in my diet, purifying water, anatomy and physiology, along with physics.

Show how science can be applied to the basic necessities of life, and go up from there.

I'm always seeing babble about "GCSEs." Can I take one to see how I do? Any discussion seems as though a person obtained a PS3 on its first day of release.

Start with the English trivium. It's one thing to be a scientist, but it's another thing to effectively communicate your ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium

It's one of those decent experiments a person can use hands-on mathematics from empirical observations. Just keep working on applying theory to reality, and you will get the hang of it.

Science!

I sometimes think people on these forums are from third-world countries because of their keyboard layouts. I'm not sure, but I've been thinking this for a while.

Knowledge of algebra is helpful for finding variables. In other words, you know various and different ways to find X. You also need to know how to cancel out variables within equations. Sometimes you'll need to find a way to remove variables, thus leaving one variable. This is often done by doing (x/x=1). In other words, you get a basic, neutral 1. Anything times 1 is itself. You'll end up doing that kind of stuff when it comes to dimensional analysis, which is like taking a variable of Y and turning it into Z: Turn 12 feet into inches.

Most of it has to do with subtracting/adding powers of 10 within equations.

The terminology makes things seem complex, but a good, critical study of elementary algebra brings a person ahead in the game.

However, algebra is needed for the basics. Calculus is needed for the higher sections.

It's about stoichiometry, but it's also about X (sub:needed) and Y (sub:needed)

So much of X is needed to neutralize Y. When neutralization occurs, color change occurs. Sometimes screwups happen if you don't correctly titrate. A way this is possible is by not dropping the liquid. Some people squirt the liquid too quickly. A skilled person tends to drop, squirt, drop, slower squirt, and when it begins to just slightly change, drop. It helps to do an experiment like this more than once for comparison.

You or I?

I was doing an experiment, and I had to balance the equations. Think you could tell me if I did these correctly?

[math]2Mg + O_{2} -bunsen burner-> 2MgO_{(s)}[/math]

[math]2 MgO + 2H_{2}O --> 2Mg(OH)_{2}[/math]

1) Magnesium + oxygen = Magnesium oxide

2) Magnesium oxide + water = Magnesium Hydroxide

I liked the more condensed form of the forum, the one with subboards instead of everything laid out.

Nah, the way it was is fine. I think it was nice for each forum board to have subboards.

On occasion, when I feel like it. It seems to come in bursts, especially when I get irritated by the grammar in some of the articles. But mostly I just read it.

Agreed. When Wikipedia was first starting, I would edit things left and right. However, the community has grown, and I don't have to do as much as I once did. Therefore, I sit on the sidelines and fix grammar when it annoys me.

The other thing that has been annoying me is when people tell me how to do things on Wikipedia. I think to myself, "I've been active over 4 years. STFU." Yeah, they don't like that attitude of mine. I try filling a hole with a new article, and they instantly want it deleted if it's not "good enough." Back in the day, they would keep it if it simply filled the hole. These days they want sources and everything else. Ugh.

The beta is so weird. I don't remember ever using it before. Anyway, how do I edit a post?

Oh, well there it is. I wasn't able to use that button in the announcements thread...

o.O And now my post that was there is gone...

Ahh, a logo. How refreshing the beta version is.

Probably. What I'm reading seems to be illogical. It seems as if the author uses improper pronoun-antecedent usage.

Maybe. But Einstein changed the groundwork of Newton.