noquacks

23 hours ago, iNow said:

Have you considered using terminology that didn’t fall out of favor due to being ignorant and discriminatory well over 60 years ago?

Yes, I did. You though may be ignorant of sociology. I do not discriminate, and I am not a racist. And neither did you offer suggestions, rather resorted to brazen insult to massage your ego. And that goes for the 2 likes that applauded your post. Do you have anything to offer which can shed light on anything related to my post? Or are you not so informed on evolution?

People,

We have 3 arbitrary "races" of H Sapiens, Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid (according to sociologists ). Around the world's regions though, we see more than 3 different types of body features which the races are based on. Far east we see Asians as mongoloid (China, Japan, Pacific islands, etc), but just next door in India, we see people with different colors and facial features.  Which race are they? Same thing in Europe, mostly Caucasian but just in N Africa (Libya, Algeria, etc) we see  what many would call Arab, not Caucasian, nor Negroid. 

The India/China border mystery is most puzzling to me. How could evolution of man explain that difference in facial anatomical features when evolution knows no borders?  Another example is Russia/Mongolia. Why Russians are Caucasian but just cross the political border and in Mongolia you get Mongoloids? How can evolution explain that? 

Thanks, people. 

Regarding simple sulfuric acid either concentrated or even 25% v/v or stronger, I use glass wool. Packed in a plastic funnel, using gloves as the wool can cut into your skin and irritate.  But the sintered glass funnel above is a neater/cleaner approach. 

How to Pray? Well, I was taught how by the nuns at the Catholic school I attended. So, I guess I was following directions as best a child could. And i continued to pray that way for.......another 45 years or so. Thats how I pray, not sure how you pray. Maybe there are different methods. But my experience is that praying does not work. Mathew, 7.7, "ask and it shall be given to you". I asked, begged, knelt, bowed, dutifully, in subservience but never received what I requested. So, disappointed, I quit praying for favors. Does it work for you? It has been shown that praying does not work. There is no evidence that it does so. Despite this, I kept praying for 50 years or so til I read one book too many. 

The borate pool approach has been abandoned for years. Chlorine still is king. The major pool service/suppliers do not touch the borate idea. I deal with one of the biggest names in pool supply/service in the nation. They buy my analytical chem products. Thats all I can say about it. I thought about borates,for my own pool,  but had to abandon the "idea". 

54 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Indeed. So, also taking into account the other responses, it seems you are right in thinking that charcoal is fairly inert, biologically, though as some posters have pointed out it does tend to adsorb substances and can be a good substrate for the growth of micro-organisms. But, to return to the question you originally asked, only a small proportion of the carbon in  cellulose is converted to charcoal in a fire. Most is burnt to CO2, or CO, which itself can burn to CO2. So only a very small amount of carbon is sequestered in the form of charcoal.  (In fact a lot more carbon is sequestered by conversion into carbonates, in the sea.)  Meanwhile, a great deal more CO2 is being liberated, both by the burning of fossil fuels and by natural processes, e.g. volcanism.

If you are interested in the various natural processes involved, you can look up the "carbon cycle" and find descriptions of the carbon sources and sinks and how they inter-relate:https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle 

 

It has finally sunk in, exchemist. Thanks for taking the time to explain further, although, many members did the same. i now understand much better the whole process of combustion and "burning". Thanks to all here. 

15 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes, but I think what the questioner is getting at is what happens to the charcoal that is produced, for instance in forest fires.

The suggestion is that this, being elemental carbon, is biochemically fairly inert and thus should remain in the soil indefinitely. It seems a fair enough question. Though the amount of carbon that can get locked up in this way is pretty minor, I should think. I don't know of any soil processes that would convert charcoal to more reactive carbon compounds, anyway. 

Right- matter of fact, archaeiologists, etc, have made finds of ancient cultures, based on the charcoal deposits/residues/evidence for their fires for cooking, warmth, etc. Many examples of Native American finds, dated back some thousands of years ago in N America........

19 hours ago, chenbeier said:

Generally to answer the headline. The carbon is burnt to carbondioxide and this can be used again to produced new plants.

But the carbon that remains did not convert to CO2 gas. It remained a black residue/by product. (right?)

But so far, thanks , people, for so many helpful replies. I am still unclear though. What am I not understanding..........

So, in a routine fire, burned matter , mostly charcoal is actually not fully "carbonized"? And charcoal compounds can react to give new building blocks for new life forms? 

People,

I often wondered, about what happens to all the carbon compounds, primarily cellulose, from the "wood" of plants/trees after a fire destroys the plant. Isnt the product a combination of charcoal, or outright burnt wood/carbon? If so, isnt it true that such a state of carbon will not react in nature, since carbon is so difficult to react with any compound.  Imagine- how can charcoal react to form new plant growth if it has been destroyed by natural fires/volcanic heat/etc over billions of years. The plants growth comes from CO2 in the air, then converted to cellulose, then burns up in a fire, and cannot react anymore(?). 

Doesnt that mean that eventually the carbon amount subjected to intense heat events will be "used up" on Earth?

Thanks, people. 

Thanks, people. Good to know I am not the only one a bit mystified. The lipid idea seems to make much sense. It is their "antifreeze", I suppose. 

People,

A bacteria cell has water in it, so once that freezes does not the cell lyse/explode? As in ice forming, expansion, and cell wall bursts? Sure, there is not just pure water inside the cell, salts/proteins/etc, but mainly water. There has to some kind of "anti freeze compound protecting them, correct? 

Thanks, people. 

Religion vs pseudoscience are different?? Academically, yes, perhaps, but what's the point? One is a cult, and the other is quackery. Both are threats to advancement of science, knowledge, and the general well being of human life/living standards. The fact they may be different does nothing to validate either belief. 

On 4/8/2021 at 11:06 AM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Christianity and Islam are responsible for some of the most heinous crimes in human history for their perseverant attempts to "proselytize". Judaism is much much less so. In point of fact , Jews themselves have been repeatedly subject to pogroms and holocausts many places around the globe.  

Rights of minority believers ought to be preserved. Be they soul-worshippers or wizards or Yezidis or Druses or whatever. Semi-organized/Organised  Groups that persecute them have to be prosecuted themselves. 

there must be a difference between the world before UN Charter of Human Rights  and after that. 

I agree with your take on judaism being perhaps less "heinous". Still, does not validate or justify that cult. Yes, the Holocaust is a Black Page/Chapter in human history, with unspeakable crimes against Jews (and let's not forget the crimes against Muslims too). 

 But it is not mutually inclusive to say well, Jews suffered immensely at different periods in the last 3000 years, so that justifies at least one of our practices to continue to demean women by including in our prayers every morning to thank Yaweh that I (a man) was not born female.  I have no stomach for any religious cult which demeans women, which must include Christainty, Islam, and Judaism. They are all about the subjugation of women. The world will never elevate itself in terms of living standards until we stop the exploitation/subjugation of women. 

13 hours ago, chenbeier said:

CuCl is easy. Add sodiumchloride or hydrochloric acid and a strong reducer like dithionite or Ascorbinic acid to the coppersulfate. You will get a white precipitate.

Manganesechloride : Add sodiumhydroxide first to manganese sulfate , you will get a sludge of manganese hydroxide. Filter it and wash it. Then neutralize with hydrochloric acid.

Just now, noquacks said:

 

13 hours ago, chenbeier said:

CuCl is easy. Add sodiumchloride or hydrochloric acid and a strong reducer like dithionite or Ascorbinic acid to the coppersulfate. You will get a white precipitate.

Manganesechloride : Add sodiumhydroxide first to manganese sulfate , you will get a sludge of manganese hydroxide. Filter it and wash it. Then neutralize with hydrochloric acid.

Thanks, Chen! That seems easy for me to do (for the Mn Cl). I dont have any of those reducers around though for the Copper chloride. But at least I got one of those taken care of! Thanks again!

Goofy website useage- I click quote and difficult to know where to type, then I end up with 2 quotes. I will learn eventually, I guess. 

Copper I chloride. I should have explained that. 

Also, while we are at it, wanting manganese chloride, but have just Mn sulfate..........Thanks. 

People,

Have some cupper sulfate pentahydrate, wanting to concert it to the chloride. Aqueous solution for is OK. Can I just add an excess of conc HCl to the solution of the sulfate? Then crystalize the chloride and wash off the sulfate solution? 

Thanks. 

27 minutes ago, RamaRaksha said:

The Dog issue - Just what I wrote - please don't read anything in it - I am not that complicated

As for being reincarnated as some other animal - yes you can - I picked a Dog because we can see it satisfies the conditions of heaven - some nice being nicely taking good care of us, nothing to do but lie about all day and enjoy the easy good life

The rules are life's rules - that we all abide by. You know that you can't stay in the nest all your life - you will have to move out - you MUST grow up and face the world

Not just us but all creatures of this world obey this nature's law which I call God's law 

This is not about believing in God - this is about obeying nature's laws

The concept of Heaven contradicts such laws - it says one can remain a helpless child for eternity. Poor God has to play the Nanny to so-called Adults who are shameless enough to think they can just sit and sponge off him for eternity

They decide their own fate - such a life is what they want, well, such a life is exactly what they WILL get

Well then, be careful how you use the word "God". Your post is a bit confusing....... 

14 hours ago, RamaRaksha said:

Hi: Most people know that Hindus believe that we might come back as lower life forms - bugs, animals

I want to correct some misconceptions on this issue

First, these ideas were not limited to Hindus alone - we don't do that - We are ALL God's Children and His/Her rules apply equally to ALL of us

Second, most religions view God as a Master - reward(Heaven) & punishment(Hell) is how he operates. Hindus view God as a Parent/Teacher - 

 

 

I prefer not to view God as my Master, thats why I dont believe in any God. And I am not his child, and he is not my Father, nor is any Priest my Father. I do not abide by his so called "rules" (to observe the Sabbath, etc etc). The Hindu cult is much like any other. Based on fiction, superstition, myth and legends. And as far as 'coming back as .......life forms", no "evidence" of reincarnation has ever passed scientific scrutiny. 

On 9/20/2013 at 7:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. 

Maybe, but then that was what Walt Disney said. Not sure if he would be considered a crackpot- racist maybe, but perhaps not a crackpot. Now, there was a time when his bankers DID worry that he may have been a crackpot. Until he proved them wrong. Sometimes it does take a crackpot. 

Actually, we should be talking about Dawkin's teacup , orbiting a planet between earth and mars. Doesnt anyone here worship that?? Im the atheist, so dont blame me. 

yes. 

19 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this?

 

I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and it isn’t true. They think we are stupid and make their own rules But nonbelievers don’t realize they follow the rules because we chose to. It isn’t just about following rules it is a way of life.

 

So a hammer doesn’t smash the hand holding it does? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I know just about any science achievement can be misused. But you just proved my point that properly used science is beautiful. But it cannot improve the world by itself.

 

 

 

Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber  Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc).”

 

 

What history are you reading? Religion is mainly responsible for the world now. The Renaissance, The education system. The Constitution. WWII.

 

And remember a lot of science is the result of war. And we fund science for profit. Prescriptions, medical. Didn’t you see the movie where Tony Stark saw all the profit he made on weapons being used for war?

Interesting you ask- I actually have read one book too many, Trul. I am an old scientist, with multi disciplinary background. Thats all I can say so far on the internet. 

I should have qualified my question as "what positive, beneficial contribution has Religion made in 3000 years". As  of yet, you have not provided any answer. You did however mention education. You mean Sunday School? Where "teachers" teach how Adam and Eve were the 1st man/woman on Earth? And how Moses met God on Mt Sinai via a burning bush? 

Do you actually believe Religion spawned the Renaissance? Then how did we manage to produce a Galileo whos discoveries about astronomy challenged and threatened the Catholic Church DURING that Renaissance? No one can prove exactly how/what spurred on the Renaissance.  

Our Constitution was written mainly by Deists (Jefferson, Washington, Monroe, etc) , not exactly a religious cult (you can google it). Either way, IMO, the Constitution is not perfect, and written by at least some hypocrites, albeit, masterful writers (thing all men are created equal- except leave my slaves out of it so I alone can benefit from them). 

Again, I offer two of the most stark examples of the contribution of science without which, in a few short weeks you would be dead- the disinfection of water throughout the modern world and the Haber Process. There are many more examples. Religious Cult "leaders" only have offered the idea of prayer, penitence,  the misguided hope of eternal salvation, and false hope. And let's not forget the vile wicked sexually disfunctional priests who pervert sexual desire/urge itself by appearing to practice abstinence as some sort of reverence to be admired. 

17 hours ago, Trurl said:

I thought this topic would bring up the limitations of science. I don’t mean a limitation of thought. But does not one scientific solution lead to more problems. Like the atomic bomb it ends war with Japan but adds the potential to destroy the planet. And I don’t think the scientist are at fault because they have a drive to create. But no matter how smart they claim to be they never consider how others will use the invention. They are foolish. I’m not saying this to insult them. They are smart but so stupid in other ways. I saw the interview with Dr. Fauci and he predicts Covid 4 years ago. Doesn’t this sound an alarm?

 

I think a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science. And by control I don’t mean oppressing it I mean an agreement not to misuse it. That would happen by the attitudes and belief of man. But how do you propose to do that without religion? I mean you could use psychology or sociology. But would these social sciences then be considered religion. It is not the laws of religion most scientist abject to but the spiritual parts. “Do not murder,” makes sense to the scientist.

 

Thoughts

Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber  Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc). 

Your idea that "a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science" is also , in my opinion and based on what I have read/learned and concluded, is also misplaced. There can not be a utopian world with the concept and emotion of possession. Greed/possession are the reason we will never have a utopian world. Has little to do with science. This goes way back to the times when man had no idea of where babies come from. 

On 10/17/2020 at 8:52 PM, mundane said:

the mole ratio of acid: salt in production of an acidic buffer solution is between 1/10 to 10/1. 

5mol HCOOH +Tell us more about what your goals are regarding buffers, then we can maybe get to some conclusion.  5mol KOH isn't a buffer solution, why? 

1mol HCOOH + 1mol HCOOK is a buffer solution, why?

 

Who said that the above is true?? I make buffers every day. Tell us what your goals are regarding buffers then we can get somewhere.  

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

Yes, but it was a decent first start.  For that, surely it deserves some respect.  I mean, you have to start from somewhere. Religion was a first attempt to organise our way of thinking about the Universe.  Later, we got into Science, which is much better and far more productive.  But the earlier religious ideas should not be despised, or so it seems to me.

In a way, yes, respect, in context of course. I should think there is a better word for it, perhaps acknowledged, maybe not so much "respect". The problem with the Bible is that too many people still believe much of its content literally. It is full of falsehoods. Therefore, it has no credibility. That doesnt mean we shouldn't understand why it was written  that way, but respect maybe is too strong a choice of a word. Of course, Charles, as you mentioned, since it was the 1st attempt, one should expect that. 

And the main problem today with the Bible is that is seems to have a privileged status, that it is to be questioned. Its only practical use today really is as a required study for English majors/English Literature. It is truly a treasure for that purpose, but little else.