Jump to content

Asheekay

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Asheekay

  • Rank
    Quark
  • Birthday June 10

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pakistan, Asia
  • Interests
    Reading.

    Writing custom encryption routines in php.

    Movies.

    Bughouse chess.

    Video games.

    Playing with small electronic components.
  • College Major/Degree
    Graduate.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry, paleontology, astronomy.
  • Biography
    So all of my life was a journey mound to mound. A swelling in an abdomen to a swelling in the ground.
  • Occupation
    Science journalist.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How do you know what God is able to do? Science is a study of "how" things work. It cannot explain "why" it is so. For example, tigers and jaguars, both live in jungles. But tigers have stripes while jaguars have spots. Both markings serve to camouflage them in the thick undergrowth. So, why do tigers have stripes while jaguars have spots? Yes, science can help explain how the genotypical variations in these felines resulted in the different phenotypical results, but then again: why stripes for tigers and spots for jaguars? When you discuss religion (specially revelation based) you discuss metaphysics, or things beyond science. Only at occasions when a religious instruction or claim is visibly opposite to scientific facts (and I repeat, facts), you can argue against it. You are partly right about the first point. There are indeed religious zealots who would go about claiming "Oh, but this scientific principle had already been narrated in the scripture". My answer to them is always "So if that is so, why didn't you announce that as a scientific claim already, before the scientists discovered it?" That usually shuts them up. At least until the next scientific discovery. That being said, i don't think you have a valid point criticizing me here, since I am presenting the possibility of spacetime return into a singularity before any such confirmed discovery by the researchers. If anything, it is you who is being self contradictory here. You would have had a point if I had tried to spin a scientific discovery or a scripture verse to imply each other. But that is clearly not the case. I am making a prediction that cosmology will accept the possibility of the return of spacetime into a singularity, despite dark energy gradually overtaking all the other forced of nature and ripping apart even the most basic of all subatomic particles.
  2. About the fate of the universe, there are multiple theories. Although dark energy appears to be winning over gravity and with the increasing velocities of the galaxies, it is quite likely that dark energy will end up ripping apart galaxy clusters, then galaxies themselves, down to solar/planetary systems and ultimately down to the dominions of electromagnetism (intermolecular bonds), strong nuclear force (atomic structure) and weak nuclear force (protons and neutrons). Quite fair and unbiased. But if I quote a scripture verse of the essence "And the heavens and Earth were wrapped, and We tore them apart. And if We desire, We may return them to that state again", most atheists get triggered. My statement at this point is that we do not know the outer cosmic structure of our universe (since we live inside of it, our existence being confined to the spacetime dimensions), it is quite possible that the rending apart of spacetime from our perspective might as well be wrapping them back together to pre-bigbang state. The ugly part is, if I present this possibility (remember, I am not saying it is so, I am saying it may be so) without the reference to the scripture, I get unbiased, neutral analysis of this possibility. However, if I announce that I got this idea from a scripture verse, most laymen instantly denounce it as an erratic assumption simply because whatever is in a scripture can "obviously" not be scientifically valid. Thankfully I get this attitude mostly from uninformed laymen. Proper scientists and researchers mostly analyse my postulates without bias, without caring the least where I got the idea from. Some Dawkins fans get triggered though, regardless of how well informed and educated they may be.
  3. Back to original topic: yes, I think it is very possible for a person to believe in a religion and be a scientist. I, for example, am a science journalist and an orthodox Muslim. I am proficient in vertebrate paleontology and astronomy as my subjects of specific interest in science journalism. Yes, I believe in evolution and that Earth was created 4.56 billion years ago and humans never coexisted with non avian dinosaurs. The only difference is that I believe that evolution is directional and not haphazardly random. One thing that enrages me is that atheists, even ignorant ones, consider science as their dominion and prerogative. When I introduce myself as a Muslim, the instant knee-jerk reaction I get is the treatment of a science-denier. As if being a believer equates to being a neanderthal brute or even baboon. Another, very dangerous trend I have observed is that laymen treat scientific theories and postulates as hard and undeniable facts. In gray areas of uncertainty, they will always, without an exception, take the postulates which run antiparallel with religious teaching and then present it as a fact, decrying criticism from me by calling me a science-denier. This trend is very dangerous. Not only for social harmony and tolerance, but also for the very progress of science itself, as a neutral, unbiased discipline based on objective observations and transparent deduction.
  4. That there is no partiality at all in the sharing of electrons. In a perfectly nonpolar covalent compound, the oxidation state of all the atoms should be zero. Atoms or groups of atoms get oxidized or reduced when there is at least some disparity in the destination of electrons which are exchanged/shared during the chemical reaction. For example in the case of NaCl, the oxidation states are highly conspicuous, due to the nature of the compound (ionic). Na gets a +1 while Cl gets a -1. In the case of covalent compounds, the oxidation states become relative (as compared to absolute, for ionic compounds). Take the case of water, which is polar covalent. Each H gets a +1 (less electronegative) and the O gets a -2 (more electronegative). However, this simple logic becomes a nightmare with organic compounds. Take methane $$CH_4$$ for example. While carbon is more electronegative than hydrogen (2.55 vs 2.20), it is written before hydrogen. So theoretically carbon should have oxidation state of -4 while the hydrogens have +1. But for reasons unknown and probably lame, carbon is written at the cation side (positive oxidation state) while hydrogen is written at the anion side (negative oxidation state).
  5. In the case of homogeneous biatomic molecules, H2, O2 etc, none of the atoms gets any oxidation state. Oxidation states are reached when there is at least some polarity in the compound. Perfectly nonpolar compounds will not have any oxidized atoms at all.
  6. Oxidation states have a lot to do with the electronegativity value of an element, regardless of whether the compound is covalent or ionic. For example, in your case of $H_2S$, hydrogen has an electronegativity of 2.20 while sulphur has a value of 2.58, being slightly more electronegative than hydrogen. Hence in hydrogen sulphide the shared electron pair spends slightly more time with sulphur than they do with hydrogen. That is why hydrogen gets a partial negative charge while sulphur gets a partial positive charge.
  7. I did already 😉 You thought it was a question 🤭
  8. In order to post here in the official jokes section, should we post only official jokes or unofficial ones can also be posted? 🤔
  9. Hello people! Asheekay from Pakistan. I have been a chemistry nerd since school and ended up landing here while searching on Mother Google for WhatsApp groups for hobbyist chemistry fans (spoiler: there aren't any). In my free time I write encryption algorithms, read about dinosaurs or astronomy and play bughouse chess. I hope I'd learn a lot from geeks here. Asheekay out.
  10. Hi all. Asheekay from Pak-is-tan (yes, we're all tan here, hence the name :p). Big, huge, gigantic, colossal chemistry fan, but my knowledge is limited to basics, mostly. Came here to announce that I've found a way to make sodium metal via electrolysis of aqueous table salt but saw that you guys have already killed my buzz there. *sad face* Okay, now coming to the serious point. I was wondering if it's possible to carry out a double displacement between sulphuric or hydrochloric acid and a nitrate (ammonium nitrate, to be precise). I understand that ammonium nitrate is probably more polar than ammonium sulphate and chloride and thus would much rather prefer to stay with nitrate than swap its partner. Is there any way to convert ammonium nitrate and sulphuric/hydrochloric acid into nitric acid and ammonium sulphate/chloride? 2NH4NO3 + H2SO4 ---> (NH4)2SO4 + 2HNO3 ??
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.