hypervalent_iodine

Depending on how far along you are in chemistry, the answer to that particular example might not be a very straight forward one for you. How much on redox chemistry have you covered so far? HNO3 is an oxidising agent, which means that it is probably going to oxidise (i.e. strip electrons away from) the carbon and cause the nitrogen to be reduced. You may have some inclination what types of procusts you'd get from that process if you've covered it. Simply counting atoms as suggested by Sensei might not be very helpful in predicting reaction outcomes if you don't have some understanding of the processes that cause certain things to react in the way that they do or at least have a knowledge of what kind of products result from various types of combinations. Really what it's helpful in is balancing equations, but that of course assumes that you already know the products. There are a number of general rules you may have learned or will learn, but I'd be curious to know what topic you are currently going through in class before I link you information that may or may not be helpful to you. Edit: I will link this PDF, though. It goes over the more basic questions you'll encounter, though it's obviously far from complete.

Australia doesn't have CVS, but I'm assuming that since the online store stocks items such as these, that the physical stores stock the same kind of stuff. I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain that Cadcury chocolate does not fall under the banner of diet or diabetic safe food.

! Moderator Note Hi ciznet, I have removed your links because they were a little suspicious. Please try not to post links that redirect through other websites like that. A straight link to Wikipedia would have sufficed. As well, I am moving this to homework. Please note that this is a help section and members will not do your work for you. Where exactly are you struggling and what do you need help understanding?

Based on your previous posts here, I am closing this thread.

I was formerly doing some reaction methodology work later I was working towards the total synthesis of some natural products . Currently I am involved in various genetics projects (mostly transcriptomics based involving non-model species) and soon I will be adding proteomics to the mix. Eventually I will return to my organic chemistry roots because that's what I'm trained in, but I'm enjoying this biology stuff at the moment.

! Moderator Note Okay, we seem to have 3 or 4 different conversations going on here at once. Admittedly, the OP is far from clear as to what this is supposed to be about, but based on subsequent comments I think we assume yahya515 was enquiring about the overlap between science and religion in a general sense. Mike Smith Cosmos, I'm not really sure where you are going with your line of conversation, but it doesn't appear to belong in this thread. Please start your own thread on it rather than continuing to derail this one. Furthermore, please try and keep the excessive font changes to a minimum. It makes your posts very difficult to read. zapatos and moth, this is also not about whether religion dictates what people think. Again, please start a new thread on this if you wish to discuss it. This is also not about whether or not God exists. Please keep that area of discussion out of it. Finally, yahya515, this is not a place for preaching or soap boxing. Please try to be clearer in your posts so that we can avoid this sort of confusion. I have also moved your thread to Religion.

! Moderator Note This website is not your soap box. Thread closed.

She has been suspended for a week for acting like an abusive troll.

! Moderator Note Enough. This was posted in the homework help section, so it is reasonable to assume that you required help with the question. We have a policy here of not giving out answers to homework or even study questions, as doing so does not help the student asking the question(s) to learn anything. The people posting here quite obviously do know the answer, but they are trying to help you answer it yourself rather than simply giving it to you. We aren't here to do your work for you, so please make an attempt at answering this on your own with or without the hints provided here, or explain where it is you are still struggling so that people may assist you better. Being condescending or generally rude is not an appropriate response to people who are taking time out of their day to help you out. Please be more respectful in the future.

! Moderator Note Update! Staff have decided to leave this thread closed.

Iwonderaboutthings has been suspended for 2 weeks for being a serial pest.

And yet you posted this in the science part of the forum and specifically asked for scientific answers (to a question that science has nothing to do with, but never mind that for the moment), making religion or religious arguments not the topic of conversation. I think many members struggle to understand most of your posts and you do little in the way to clarify them when asked to.

! Moderator Note Alright, this is silly. I'm closing the thread pending review. Iwonderaboutthings, if you don't start adjusting the way you respond to members here, you will find your time with SFN cut short.

I thought this was a thread about science, not religion? Stick to your own topic. And as I and others have already stated, this does not make homosexuality wrong. You can repeat this line until you are blue in the face, but you have nothing to say until you can properly address the criticisms that others have made about your premise. Just...no.

It doesn't. None of what you just said makes sense or has any relevance to this thread and it furthermore demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what science is. I would strongly recommend you re-read my post or Delta's or alternatively, take some time away to correct your misconceptions.

What does you being gay have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't address anything in my post. You should try doing that. And actually, you have disagreed with most of the posts made in this thread. Furthermore, yes you damned well have: Along with your implied stance that it is wrong throughout this entire thread. If that is not your position, then I once again implore you to adopt clarity when you post.

The point that Delta is making here - one that you do not seem to get, despite having been told it in numerous threads - is that science is not some massive conglomerate that decides whether something is right or wrong. It is a tool that is used to describe the world around us and how things are. Commenting on whether a phenomenon that clearly exists in nature is right or wrong is completely outside the purview of science.

I would like to point out that I never once said you have an, 'original thinking mind.' Those words weren't even a part of my post. What I said was this: You'd also do well not to take my statements out of their intended context. Secondly, you cannot keep insisting on your absurd preposition that homosexuals are wrong as per science when this point has been refuted over and over again in this thread. Unless you are willing and able to go through and detail why this is (and why science should have anything to say on the matter at all) without committing further logical fallacy or going off on completely unrelated tangents, then you cannot keep stating it as fact. Finally, though I cannot moderate here, I would like to unofficially point out to you that you are crossing the line by calling the people who are homosexuals wrong, as per rule one of this forum. I have already mentioned to you that 'wrong' is not the argument you appear to be making and it is not scientific.

! Moderator Note Eclipse, you've been here long enough to know that we don't allow advertising here, in addition to being spam banned once before. Please do not create threads for advertising.

Colic has been banned as a sockpuppet of SamBridge.

This seems to be a persistant problem with you. The questions are only simple if you outline them properly before people make an attempt at answering you. You ask one thing and then go and change the question in the next post or come up with absurd straw men, claiming that the people who have already responded to your first question are wrong and that it's really very simple. Keeping up with your ever-shifting goal posts and straw men is not simple. It's frustrating at best and dishonest at worst and you should probably try and avoid it. As I have already stated, you cannot narrow the quesiton to the ability to conceive children or not. If you are not willing to accept that, then please clearly state why you think it is an incorrect way of viewing things. Waving my post off by stating that it is too analytical is not an acceptable response to a valid counter-point. Clearly not everyone or even a majority of people in the world are homosexual, so your hypothetical situation has no relevance to the argument because it has no fathomable basis in reality. Most people are not homosexual, so as far as continuation of the species is concerned on the larger scale, it really shouldn't and doesn't matter if some people are; the human population will still continue to climb. Furthermore and since you continue to ignore this point, infertile people also have no children. Neither do most elderly females. Are they also wrong / unnatural? Is a fertile man engaging in relations with an infertile woman unnatural because their union cannot possibly result in children?

Your argument falls down by assuming that the sole reason that humans engage in sex is for the purposes of reproduction and continuation of the species. It's not. Humans are incredibly complex (largely due to our cognitive abilities) and our reasons for engaging in sex goes beyond the need to make babies. There are sociocultural aspects to consider, as well as economic ones and of course, the fact that sex is an enjoyable pass time is not something to be ignored. You cannot simply denote the sexual behaviour of some people as right or wrong on the basis that it does not conform to biological imperatives because it almost completely ignores the psychophysiological complexity of human behaviour. You also have to consider the fact that humans are not the only species to engage in homosexual acts and so the claim that it is unnatural is ignorant of how many animals in nature behave. And what do you mean by to date? As far as I’m aware, the human population is still increasing to ever-unsustainable levels, so the statement appears to be bunk. As well, homosexuality is not unique to the 21st century. Furthermore, classifying homosexuality as right or wrong implies some sort of moral aspect. This is why I asked for clarification, because moral arguments against homosexuality are separate arguments to the one you appear to be making. Edit: The thread was moved to the Biology section, biology being a discipline of science that is way more relevant to a thread about biological imperatives and sexual behaviours than is physics.

! Moderator Note This has literally nothing to do with physics. I am moving the thread somewhere more appropriate for the time being. Your question is also very vague. What do you meant by 'wrong as per science'? Even more specifically, what do you mean by wrong? You appear to be simply to be defining wrong as not being able to conceive children, but then this isn't true for some heterosexual couples either; could you please clarify what you mean? As well, your list of discriminatory acts suffered by homosexuals seems to not have much to do with your question and at least two of them appear to be fairly ridiculous. Be aware that I will be closing this thread if you can't come up with a clear question or premise for your OP and more generally, members posting here should be aware that we will not tolerate any instances of slurs or prejudice against homosexuals.

kristalris has been suspended for 30 days for a culmination of instances of thread hijacking and more recently, violating the rules prohibiting slurs and prejudice. oslostudent44 has been banned as a sock puppet of Vinko Rajic.