Iota

Enough said.

http://lessons.chemistnate.com/uploads/5/0/2/9/5029141/__4177903.png?223 I'm having trouble understanding how the 4th line is derived from the 3rd line, would anyone mind explaining to me? I understand how the RHS (right hand side) is merely being simplified, but why exactly does it become -1 over T1 and T2? To make -delta Hvap positive, would be the simple answer I suppose, but why does it work? In other words could you point out the rules in maths for this kind of rearranging? Thanks!

If anything philosophy lead to science. Religion hinders science and is incompatible with it. Man created religion before science (as we know it today) existed. Science is the result of man's search for answers, much like religion in that respect. However, only one of the two practices actually works.

I'd assume that where you've said 'equilibrium' that you mean "reaction completion". If it were an equilibrium, you'd need a dissociation constant value in order to work out equilibrium concentrations. Note that volumes are equal, therefore the molar ratio between NaOH and HCl is 2:1 respectively. Therefore you don't need to do anything to those values, you simply need a balanced equation, as you already have done. There's 0.2M Cl- from the 0.2M NaCl produced. There's 0.4M Na+ from the 0.2M NaOH not reacted, plus the 0.2M NaCl produced. There's 0.2M OH- from the 0.2M NaOH not reacted. The reason you don't include water is because it does not behave ionically. That is, it does not dissociate into ions; it's covalent. NaCl, HCl and NaOH are all ionic. HCl is a special case because it is actually covalently bonded, however it behaves ionically in solution.

.

There's speculation that in the future the West will perhaps adopt a more Asian diet of insects. There's far more of them, far easier, more environmentally friendly and economical for a population to eat. Healthy too.

Another good question would be why does Jesus look white in almost every depiction, when he was a middle-eastern Jew. I'm guessing he wouldn't be quite so worshipped in the West if he resembled the stereotypical 'terrorist' look, which he almost certainly would have.

I think some tougher parenting is required for some users of the internet.

Well, Peter, you see: when two grown ups like each other very much...

That's alright. Nobody ever does, just pick the bits you like and ignore the rest.

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad

Ah right lol, didn't come across that way at first but I get you now.

I think you have to be sociopathic to get that one.

For someone so intent on holding their own theory on the topic, it astounds me to see that you clearly not bothered learning any of the science surrounding the matter. -Sexuality being natural in no way or form contradicts its ability to occur or exist. -Being homosexual may result in many homosexuals not having children of their own, that does NOT mean the genes resulting in homosexuality won't be passed on. The gene that results in homosexuality occurring can be recessive in the siblings of a gay person, and therefore be passed on by their heterosexual siblings. Prenatal hormonal exposure affects the development of a foetus (obviously), and if a male foetus is exposed to a lot of female hormone in the womb, it can cause them to develop more feminine traits. The same is true for female foetuses. Another example of how the gene could be passed on; as we all know, there are a lot of priests and religious followers, for example, who will form relationships with the opposite sex, despite being gay due to fear of persecution. In Islamic countries gay muslims are stoned to death, so they might choose to have children to avoid being murdered. In the Catholic church a lot of homosexual religionists may fear persecution, because homosexuality is viewed as a sin in their religion, and will therefore have children with the opposite sex, despite being gay, and pass on the gay gene. Or alternatively carry out their acts of homosexuality by preying on vulnerable children in secret (for example). So as you see it is very possible for homosexuality to be passed on genetically and if, as you suggested, it is a sin; ironically religious people are responsible for passing on the gay gene. Well, science doesn't back up these wild theories of yours, nor intuition. So I'm wondering, how is it that you're so confident spouting this nonsense without anything other than your gut instinct, while you're so quick to completely overlook every science driven fact thrown your way? It IS a natural urge, it's NOT a choice. It is known that what causes to or atleast contributes towards people turning out gay is a combination of genetics and prenatal hormone exposure.

If 'Worldstarhiphop.com' is reporting about it before scientists are, it's going to be fake. And be wary of anything that starts or ends a sentence with (no bullsh**). That's usually a good indication that it is, in fact, bullsh**.

You've contradicted yourself here entirely, you was asked when you decided to be straight; you responded with 'when I went to school and noticed girls are attractive'. That's not a choice, that's an incidental revelation; you've just established that your sexuality was already pre-determined, without even realising. Also, science doesn't care about your opinion, the matter of fact is, sexuality is not something that comes about by nurture or choice, it's nature. For example some animals are homosexual, are you implying that animals are able to make concious decisions regarding their sexuality? As well as that, are you implying that we as animals are different from every other species that exists?

Looks like you made an error there Pete. It looks as though you just inferred that sexuality is determined through concious decision, as opposed to genetic and hormonal control. Not to worry mate! But this being a science website I thought I'd point out your mistake and give you the facts.

Now now, I'd given you a reason for this, but if you want to disregard that argument and hypothesize wildly, feel free. No need to be sorry, I wasn't complaining, I was just putting forward the fact. Such is indeed life. I'll explain the difference you seem to have missed there: the Irish, for example. That is a word to describe someone's nationality, where they are from; something not chosen and corresponds to a location where said person resides, a place we all know, like any other place, people reside by one another by chance and not a deliberate congregation based on a belief system etc. You can't, seriously, assign presumptive attributes to these people for those reasons. A Catholic, on the other hand, is a person who has chosen to identify, with a group (Catholics), based on their shared beliefs and desire to practice with those of a belief very close to their own (yes, obviously there are variations). Beliefs based on a book, which is to be taken literally, in the truest sense of Catholicism and followed by the letter (so is intended). What you call a generalisation I call a prediction, based of an evident trend. Which you'd have to be being deliberately naive not to recognise.

Well if you wasn't implying it stemmed from atheism; your argument may well be intact, but it contains no relevance as an argument to what I said. On top of that, you should word your argument more carefully in future, because you said, quote: ... Well then they shouldn't call themselves Catholics. This sounds very much like most modern day Western religionists, you simply don't know what you stand for. It's so ambiguous and so selective that it becomes redundant, yet that doesn't change the fact that a religious belief system IS based on absolutes, regardless of the fact most holy books will contradict these absolutes countless numbers of times, which is just one reason why religion fails utterly. Insulting? How so? According to you, I'm addressing a group that apparently doesn't exist? Unless, of course, you are grouping yourself with them... But they DO put themselves into groups, which is the bigger picture I was pointing at. Regardless of whether you believe they do so based on blind faith or not. Again your argument seems rather redundant therefore. And I also pointed out, quote: For the very reason of avoiding this kind of pointless discussion, which avoids the main point completely.

It's not based on biases that stem from atheism though, because atheism isn't a belief system. So, even if you was correct, that my view stems from some sort of bias, it would be separate from my atheism, which defeats your argument. Of course religionists' beliefs vary from one to the next, but that does not remove the fact that they all conform to a belief system based on absolutes, as opposed to individually formed rationales, regardless of whether they do or not; which was exactly my point. I may well do well to stop referring to the religious in groups, but seeing as they put themselves into groups, hence religions, I would not be wrong to do so. At least not in the same way Dylan was to group all atheists together, which again, was exactly my point.

Come on man... lighten up.

An atheist doesn't belong to a religious belief. That's the problem with defining yourself as an atheist, it's not always one or the other. Quite a few people who called themselves atheist are technically agnostics strongly leaning towards atheism; that is they don't absolutely rule out the possibility of a God, as they wouldn't rule out the possibility of anything. However, that doesn't mean they believe there is a God, because there's no evidence of one to lead them to do so. That aside, atheists do not have biases in the same way a religious person does, because they are able to look at all religions equally, unlike a religious person. An atheist generally looks at things by evidence and rationale, whereas a religionist will look at it by blind and sheer belief, based on nothing other than their gut; which serves them wrongly. You'd do well to stop referring to 'atheists' as some sort of collective group, in the same way you would a religious group. That doesn't work. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's merely a word to describe someone who doesn't have a belief in a deity. Their beliefs vary GREATLY from one atheist to the next. Unlike religionists, who all conform somewhat to a shared belief system, blindly. As for plainly categorising yourself as an agnostic, is equally as foolish as calling yourself a theist; seeing as the rationale for agnosticism can be applied to anything that doesn't have any evidence, basically, 'I can't prove it definitely doesn't exist, therefore I'm not sure'. Which, personally, I don't think can be described as a 'belief', perhaps only very very loosely.

He probably just wanted the voices in his head to stop, more than anything.

The essence of Christianity and similar religions is narcissism. Of course it's a deplorable view to accept a piece of superstition of such, and dress it up as a martyr for the forgiveness of their wrong doings. What they seem to claim as selflessness I can only view as cowardice and darn right ridiculous. Well technically God sacrificed his own human form to himself, and it very much had a religious significance, in the eyes of God. God offered himself to God with the human sacrifice of God to allow God to forgive the sins God allowed to happen.

Show us your attempt at this question, we'll go from there.