DJBruce

With UC's approval I will post the next riddle. I am an element named after Einstein's Marie Currie. The person I am named after took the first steps to Little Boy, but was never awarded The Prize for my nobel work. What is it?

If space is expanding, then can space actually be infinitely large? Because to be infinitely large means something is without bound. How does something that is without bounds become bigger?

I discussed Cutter's and Princess' theory wit them on IRC two nights ago. Their theory is similar to the big crunch, although they did not expressly use that name. They believe that eventually universal expansion will stop, and slowly gravity will pull everything back together. Everything will eventually be compressed into a singularity and then another big bang will occur, saving us from the heat death of the universe. This was what their theory appeared to be, although they didn't provide any proof or evidence for it. As for the what escape velocity has to do with the expansion of the Universe, I would speculate it might come from something similar to this passage from Wiki: But to be honest I have no idea what this means.

You are completely wrong, Edwin Hubble was the first to see other galaxies and then after that the idea of a expanding universe was made. I beg you do some research on redshifts, and how they prove that the universe is expanding.

If you look at a golf ball a mile away can you tell if it is moving away? Observations on the micro-scale on Earth do not always translate to the macro-scale in space. How do you get around the redshift data?

Something moving away won't appear smaller, but something really far away will. At the distances and speeds dealt with in expansion this observation is irrelevant, so the doppler effect is observed and a redshift is measured exactly like iNow said.

The satellite is falling to the Earth the same rate the curve of the Earth is falling away from the satellite thus an orbit is formed.

At least in my lab experience a magnetic stirrer is used when a solution needs to stirred constantly, and no you could not build one easily at home. If a solution only needs to be mixed briefly, I use a glass stirring rob, which you could not make at home but could by at a local store. As a side note if you do but a glass stirring rob be careful that you either by a Pyrex one or are careful not to change the temperature of it quickly.

First is their any statistic that you consider reliable for comparing the overall state of healthcare in different countries? Again, their is a difference between you disliking the studies results and the study being unscientific. As myself and numerous others in this thread have asked please show the evidence that makes the World Health Organization study unscientific.

I found that video to be amazing, not only are the images incredibly interesting, but I found the movie to be incredible moving.

My point exactly, thank you for verbalizing it so well. Also, Navigator you held one position on the subject I held the other. I back up my position by saying the World Health Organization is a prestigious institute who would not publish something that is unscientific, and that the research was conducted in a scientific and objective manner, although this is unneeded as it is considered the norm for the World Health Organization. You on the other hand have refused to back up you position, first denying you ever held that position and then once shown that you had taken that position you used the burden of proof fallacy to avoid answering the question. So again if you make a claim whether in rebuttal or otherwise please support your opinion.

If you have pure NaOH in the caustic soda then yes simply dissolve it in water. Remember molarity is simply mols over volume. So calculate the number of mols caustic soda you use, and then divide it by the amount of water you use to dilute it. I must warn you please be extremely extremely careful if you try to do this. The dissociation is highly exothermic and can cause burns if you are not careful. Also if you are creating a highly basic solution you can also receive a chemical burn so I urge you to follow proper lab protocol and be incredible careful if you try this.

Infant mortality rate is, "the number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year." It does not take into account abortions. Infant morality is widely considered a very good indicator of a country's overall health because it takes into account many factors. Actually you did state that the World Health Organization was not scientific when you stated:

I am personally against the government extending itself any further into providing healthcare for people, but am for the government imposing reform to private healthcare, similar to John Mackey's proposal.

If you cannot be certain about how the quality of care in other countries compares to the quality in the United States how do you state, "its not as good either?" Also how do you seem to state that our system is better than a single payer system? Also you failed to show how the study is not scientific, you simply keep stating it favors countries with socialized medicine. Regardless of how a study turns out, if the researchers create specific criteria and then subjectively compare countries against this criteria it is scientific. Just because you disagree with the criteria of the study does not mean the study is not scientific.

I read your arguments, and they have not changed my opinions nor do they respond to my questions; so I will reiterate it here. If countries with socialized medicine have horrible care, ie: 50% of the study, how do the preform better than the United States who should crush them in this 50%?

Their is the Chemistry Olympiad and Physics Olympiad in the United States. The US program is designed to find high school students to compete on the US National team at the international competition, so I would assume their is a similar competition in Canada. From first hand participation the Chemistry Olympiad is ridiculously hard, but you seem to have a gift with chemistry. Here is a link to the Canadian Chemistry and Physics Olympiad.

How is the study not scientific, it seems to meet all the requirements to be, it set objective criteria and then measured how countries compare against this set of criteria using subjective data and evidence. You pointed to two out of the four criteria used in the study, so even if countries with socialized healthcare benefit in those two categories. They would have been crushed in the other two categories which are the population's overall health and the health systems responsiveness. Which according to your post would be miserable in a socialized health system. I would also like to point out that part of responsiveness is, " autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health" so the socialized health systems with their "death panels" would completely fail part of responsiveness.

As for the leanings of the World Health Organization I would have to feel that they would be fairly neutral. Also say the research they conducted and published was scientific I would have to say that if the researchers did have and bias or political leaning that they would put them aside be impartial in their research. As for the study being favorable to countries with socialized healthcare, I have a question. The study took into account satisfaction and quality of care if socialized medicine is so horrible, as you have hinted at in the quotes bellow, wouldn't their scores in these sections be so miserable that they would score poorly overall. If your healthcare is miserable it doesn't matter if all your population is covered because they are all getting miserable care, so you would score lower, than a country were a good portion of the country receives good to exceptional care.

So one the big cable news issue today was the fact that the crowd at President Obama's townhall meeting was calm, respectful, and engaged in a civil debate. The pundits explanation of this range from, Obama seeded the crowd with supporters to respecting the office of the president. Personally I feel that the crowd was simply being respectful to the president and that they realized you cannot accomplish anything by yelling. Also in an interview with Matt Lauer Press Secretary Gibbs discuses his thoughts on the situation with townhalls. He points to the fact that the yelling and shouting is unproductive and not needed. Aside from that it he seemed to blame cable television for the yelling. Some have taken this to mean that the dissension to healthcare reform was AstroTurf, but I think he was simply suggesting that cable news networks are purposely trying to create turmoil by showing every little incident and using fear mongering tactics. Here is the Secretary Gibbs interview sorry I could not get it to embed.

No because all group one metals are completely soluble in water, and thus dissociate. Also most sulfates are soluble in water meaning that the reaction you propose would not happen. Solubility Rules

As you said you saturated the solution with [math]NaOH_{s}[/math] it could be. If the temperature changed or you added slightly to much [math]NaOH_{s}[/math] then some of it would not dissolve and would simply collect on the bottom. Of course in the above mentioned situation the stuff on the bottom would be [math] NaOH_{s} [/math] not [math] Na [/math]. As a small side note their is actually no [math] Na [/math] in the solution their is [math] Na^{+}_{aq} [/math]. Although it seems trivial if there was actually [math] Na_{s} [/math] in the solution you would have a very violent reaction where [math]NaOH_{aq}[/math] is formed Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I left out the [math] Na^{+} [/math] in the reaction because it is a spectator ion, it simply stays in solution unreacted. If you want the reaction in it entirety here it is: This is the dissociation of the sodium hydroxide. [math] NaOH_{aq}\rightarrow Na^{+}_{aq} + OH^{-}_{aq}[/math] This is the dissociation of the Copper (II) Sulfate. [math] CuSO_{4} \rightarrow Cu^{2+}_{aq} + SO^{2-}_{aq} [/math] When you mix them you get this overall reaction. [math] 2Na^{+}_{aq} + 2OH^{-}_{aq} + Cu^{2+}_{aq} + SO^{2-}_{aq} \rightarrow Cu(OH)_{2 s} + SO^{2-}_{4 aq} + 2Na^{+}_{aq}[/math]

No the blue precipitate is [math]Cu(OH)_{2\ s}[/math] The overall reaction is: [math]CuSO_{4\ aq} + 2OH^{-}_{aq} \rightarrow Cu(OH)_{2\ s} + SO^{2-}_{4\ s} [/math] The blue in the solution is caused by the unreacted [math]Cu^{2+}_{aq}[/math]

The universe is simply everything that exists as a whole, it includes space, but they are not the same thing.

Thanks, your offer is very generous. I should be off on the 30th so if you guys do the webcam thing I hopefully can toast with you guys.