exchemist

MR would get the bum’s rush in pretty short order here.

What is the quantum eternity theorem?

Does it? I suppose in the case of a 2 electron bond it typically involves 2 electrons sharing a molecular orbital but with opposed spin orientations. We have no way of knowing which is which, nor does it have any significance.

Oh I see him as the gopher* in Deputy Dawg, catchphrase:”What happened, what happened?”. *Full name: Vincent van Gopher, but shortened to “Vince”, pronounced “Vayernce” in the Deep South US accent of the characters.

Haven't you got your chronology back to front, though? The Big Bang preceded the development of life by billions of years. You would need a time machine for life to go back and cause it! And then consider: life requires complex biochemical molecules. These molecules require (i) a range of elements to be present and (ii) a temperature regime below ~350K, so that their complex structure is not disrupted by thermal motion. After the Big Bang, it took a while before any chemical elements at all were formed, and when they were, there was initially only H, He and a bit of Li. All the heavier elements were formed later, by nuclear fusion in stars. Also, initial temperatures after the Big Bang were very high. It was only after a considerable degree of expansion had taken place that cool enough locations developed in which complex molecules could remain stable.

Oh sure, a lot of people in Europe have compared Trump to Mussolini for quite a few years. In fact some of us even compared the UK's "Mini Me" version, Boris Johnson, to Mussolini as well, though he was never in Trump's league of course. Trump is behaving like a copybook dictator taking over a democracy: going for the justice system, the electoral system and the media. But El Douche makes him sound like a S American dictator rather than Italian - which is better in a way as S America has had more than its share of fly-by-night, tinpot dictators. Anyway, it's a very apposite nickname.

I very much like “El Douche”, combining as it does the sinister with the contemptible. Is this a thing now in the US, or have you just invented it?

This seems a fairly ridiculous question. How are we supposed to know what you may find interesting as an essay topic?

And the Leaning Tower of Pizza is what you get when your Deliveroo courier stacks them too high.

No, that paper is behind a paywall, so not acceptable here. Kindly explain how you overcome the objection we are raising, here on the forum, in your own words, with reference to the diagram posted by @John Cuthber.

Which theory are you talking about? Newton’s, or Einstein’s? Or both, perhaps, if you are a Flat Earther? 🤪

The smallest would be a monatomic molecule, for instance any of the inert gases (Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon). These atoms don't form chemical bonds at all, or only with great difficulty, so as substances they are composed of single atoms. So in this case, the atom and the molecule are one and the same.

A molecule is a group of atoms joined by chemical bonds, constituting the smallest complete subunit of a chemical compound that can take part in chemical reactions. In the case of giant structures there is no such subunit. You could almost say that, with a giant structure, the whole structure could be thought of as one giant molecule, but even that would not be entirely right as it has no fixed size: it's size simply depends on how big the entire crystal is!

Hmm, could be. From what I read about him in the Financial Times, Musk is a hardcore free-market tech bro, thinking that most functions of the state should be outsourced to private enterprise IT companies to obtain efficiencies. The full "Robocop" scenario, in fact! To me - as to the makers of "Robocop" - this is a vision of a dystopian hell, with the populace fed a diet of comforting lies and cheap consumerism ("I'll buy that for a dollar"), while IT corporations make decisions about society based solely on profit-driven self-interest.

Actually this is not correct, because not all compounds are molecules. There are also giant structures, both ionic (such as common salt) and covalent, (such as quartz). These compounds are not molecular in nature but are indefinitely extended arrays of atoms, with regular repeating units that correspond to the formula of the compound: NaCl i.e. one Na+ to every Cl-, and SiO₂, i.e. one Si atom with 4 covalent bonds to every 2 O atoms with 2 covalent bonds each. (Metals are also a 3rd type of giant structure, but these are generally not chemical compounds.) But yes, you are right that oxygen and nitrogen are both diatomic molecules: O=O and N≡N. Carbon dioxide is a triatomic molecule: O=C=O. (Oxygen also forms a triatomic molecule, ozone, but that is very reactive and not good to breathe at all - though it does find some application in disinfecting public swimming baths.)

That sounds about right. Meanwhile Musk, famous for his impatience, will become more and more frustrated and angry. And then a fuse will blow and he’ll storm out. Probably.

I don’t follow you here. Sure, the absolute value of the momentum depends on the choice of inertial frame, but the change in it does not. Just as the velocity of a thrown cricket ball is different as seen from the ground vs. a passing car, whereas the change in velocity when it is caught is the same for both frames of reference. Or am I missing something?

Who will put Musk’s recommendations into effect, then? Trump himself?

A classic salt bridge, in fact.

I found this which may help to explain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_white. esp. this passage: "Copper bowls have been used in France since the 18th century to stabilize egg foams. The copper in the bowl assists in creating a tighter bond in reactive sulfur items such as egg whites. The bond created is so tight that the sulfurs are prevented from reacting with any other material. A silver-plated bowl has the same result as the copper bowl, as will a pinch of powdered copper supplement from a health store used in a glass bowl. " I believe there are disulphide and thiol (-SH) groups in egg albumen which will react with Cu and Ag. The reason why Cu and Ag bond in this way while Group I and II metals don't will be to do with the nature of the bonding. Gp I and II metals will only form fully ionic bonds, whereas Cu and Ag can form bonds with more covalent character, possibly with some π-contribution in the case of a 3rd row element like S. I can't remember much about this, though, so maybe someone else can help.

I'm amazed this is still going on. A pattern has emerged. A simple question is asked - and the answer is several paragraphs of verbiage, dancing around the issue and introducing newly invented terminology, but not answering the question. At the end of the day, no answer has been given to explain how, given that, as @John Cuthber and others have pointed out, a range of compositions can have the identical density, one composition can be positively identified without any extra information being provided. Unless a succinct answer to this can be provided, one is forced to conclude this is all bullshit.

As far as I know, there is no workable system of democracy other than electoral democracy. So I think your distinction is of little significance in practice.

Because sabre-rattling is a sign of insecurity and makes war more likely, not less. Everyone knows the USA has the power to destroy Russia. Talking about it is cheap. What gets the Russians’ attention is demonstration of resolve. The re-election of Trump shows that the USA lacks that resolve. I share your hope that Putin may eventually get deposed by internal revolt, but that won’t come from talk by the US president. In fact, now that Trump has been re-elected, Putin will feel quite safe from any threat from the USA. Trump is on his side.

Would be funny if it turns out to be some very large scale inverse square law. Newton would be cackling in his grave.

No, because the tense of the question is wrong for that. It would have read “how many missiles would have been launched” , if it was a question about 1962. Asking how many the US “would launch” places the hypothetical question firmly in the present/near future, to my mind.