hypervalent_iodine

They don't necessarily need to be charged, they can be partially electron deficient / electron rich. Do you know what effect the strength and extent of these interactions might have on things like boiling point?

What do you know about intermolecular forces / electrostatic interactions?

Is this for homework?

I genuinely cannot understand your question. Dalton looked at the ratio of masses of products of defined reactions that were known to give rise to multiple products, and used that to deduce what was essentially chemical formulae. It formed part of the basis of atomic theory, which I assume is what you mean by particulate nature of matter? What it helped to show, building from work by Lavoisier and Proust and along with many other things such as the conservation of mass, was that matter is made up of discrete, indivisible units (i.e. atoms). He did that by showing, as you have described, that "if the same two elements can be combined to form a number of different compounds, then the ratios of the masses of the two elements in their various compounds will be represented by small whole numbers." (from here). The key part being that the ratios were always whole numbers. His work has its limitations, but I do not understand how you would interpret it as being in support of Aristotelian elements, or why that would be a useful interpretation to begin with. The two concepts are not really related. What about when CO isn't a gas? What about when it is a liquid or a solid? We moved away from this because it is simply not a useful (nor scientific) way of thinking about or categorising matter.

I'm not a historian, but I think you might be confused here. Dalton did not disprove Aristotle per say, since scientists of Dalton's time had already moved well past the views of the ancient Greeks. It was actually Robert Boyle in the mid 1600's who first proposed that there may be more than the 3 or 5 element system of Aristotle's time. This is from wiki: The elements as per Aristotle (air, earth, wind, water, and aether) are not really comparable how we look at modern chemical elements, except in the very basic definition of an element (that is, a building block of matter). This is why I asked you if you disagree with atomic theory.

I am having trouble making any sense out of this. Could you explain what specifically you mean by air element or earth-like element? Because to me it sounds like you're just renaming basic states of matter (solid, gas, liquid). Do you disagree with atomic theory?

Rubbing alcohol (isopropanol) is not the same as the alcohol in the stuff you drink (ethanol). So, no.

I suggest we stop the bickering and petty downvoting and return to the topic.

fizzicle has been banned as a sock puppet of pittsburghjoe.

! Moderator Note OP, I am closing this thread and have removed your link. Members are welcome to post links, but they should not form the basis of your entire post. If you have something to discuss, please do so here rather than setting the expectation that others click through links to figure out what you're talking about.

This article goes into a lot of what CharonY and Sensei are saying, if you’re interested: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00661-w

A literature search suggests your conditions are too harsh. How are you tracking the reaction and working it up? I found a few references for you that cover the synthesis (you might have to look in the SI). If you have access to SciFinder or Reaxys, you can look these reactions up. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00298 https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.201902150 https://doi.org/10.1002/jhet.3686 https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.201803039

Because of the CH2 difference, as you put it. They’re different compounds, hence different names, though it is worth noting that they are common but not preferred names (as per IUPAC). Are you familiar with the syntax used in naming (eg the difference between propyl and butyl, or iso and sec)?

I would strongly discourage you from playing around like this if you don’t know what you’re doing.

Staff have decided to update the forum rules to include the following: This is in response to a number of threads and certain members who have made threads here under the premise of 'just asking a question,' only to reveal that they are in fact trying to peddle conspiratorial or otherwise nonsense ideas. While covered to some extent by pre-existing rules, we have decided to make it explicit that we will not be hosting these sorts of threads, if for no other reason than the fact that they are a waste of everyone's time.

Bmpbmp1975 has been suspended for one month to give everyone a break from the incessant trolling.

! Moderator Note Your thread was closed because members and staff were sick of your trolling. I'm issuing you a vacation until next month, please use it wisely.

Yes, not something I would recommend for a beginner.

The CAS number is 4722-59-2, AKA 1,4-dioxan-2-yl hydroperoxide. What do you need it for?

! Moderator Note It seems more to me that you don't understand enough about the context of the actual question and are therefore (inadvertently) giving nonsensical answers. It is probably best you stop derailing the thread with what are really off-topic answers. Microvesicles really do not have anything to do with what Dagl1 is asking about.

! Moderator Note Sensei, I’m sure you can make your points without also using insults.

dad has been banned for ignoring staff warnings to quit it with the thread hijacking.

! Moderator Note You were told in 2016 to stop bringing this up. It is clear you haven't changed in your inability to parse basic science and denial of reality in the face of actual evidence, so that mandate still stands.

! Moderator Note Quit hijacking threads with your unsubstantiated and unscientific rhetoric. You were warned about this barely 3 hours ago, and you will be banned if you continue.

TonyWang is also banned for the same reason.