insane_alien

Hydrogen peroxide has to react before it comes toxic...

really? name ONE toxin that doesn't undergo a reaction.

The very fact that a toxin causes intoxication means that it is affect your body chemistry. and the only way to do that is to react.

it'll either cause new reactions in your body or inhibit normal ones leading to damage.

there are other examples of toxic chemicals that don't fit your rules:

for instance, formaldehyde should be non toxic by your reckoning. (hint: its toxic)

are you going to argue that every compound we class as toxic isn't really toxic because it has to react first?

if you are then that means you aren't describing toxicity, you are trying to change the definition of toxicity to something that fits your hypothesis which is very very bad science. Once you came up with the prediction that 'compounds with lone pairs (except when on each element it is a multiple of two) are toxic' you should have had a look to see if this were actually true. wikipedia makes this almost trivially easy as it shows the structures along with MSDS information.

so first off we have ALL the amino acids and proteins. plenty of lone pairs on all the nitrogens. non-toxic. as essential for life as water. so thats a first counter.

then we can look at the other side. toluene. no lone pairs at all. still quite toxic.

it seems your hypothesis doesn't stand up to reality. reality trumps everything. It doesn't care how good it sounds. It doesn't care that you spent so much time developing the hypothesis. It just is. This is why we have the scientific method. 99% (if its that low a fraction) of hypotheses get chucked at the first hurdle because they do not accurately reflect reality. Nothing wrong with being wrong about something. We ALL do it. Just, when people prove that your idea is wrong, accept the fact and move on. Sticking with it is just going to make you look like a stubborn git and make everyone a wee bit hostile because it is annoying as hell. It'd be nice if we didn't get so annoyed by it, but we are human. Humans get annoyed by having to repeat the same thing over and over again ad nauseum.

Not really. In glucose for instance, all the carbon and hydrogen have no unbonded electrons. Only oxygens that have four electrons each unbonded. According to the theory, glucose is non toxic because of the quad static property of electron which confers stability and non toxicity to four electrons per element of a compound.

what about hydrogen peroxide then?

keep, I still use all of mine on a regular basis.

okay, the business practices one is only used to support my fridge but thats still a use.

What about, "Baby, your bum makes THAT look fantastic!"

The reply was 'so your saying i have crap fashion sense?'

again, no right answer.

"Does my bum look big in this?"

From extensive testing of this question in real life situations, there is no correct answer to this. The only option is to go for the response which cause you the least amount of grief.

this is why i hate division represented by a single line and why i always put brackets around what i'm dividing by (even if they aren't needed). If we could have a multiple line input like latex then that would solve all these problems.

well, it's definitely recent since it follows road 16Z exactly and 16Z is frequently used by climbers going to the nearby cliffs.

Probably someone got bored with a tractor and cleared some topsoil. besides, apparently the area experiences flooding and it gets impassible due to the mud. I doubt this would have survived 100 years never mind a couple of hundred.

modern art, not ancient art.

I think you're wrong there. See, we can admit where we've made a mistake, the only time ridicule comes into it is when they are still adamant but have no evidence and ignore contrary evidence. This becomes very tiring very quickly. We aren't robots so of course we get frustrated. I'd be worried if we didn't.

I know, and only a few of these great men have ever attained such. Perhaps some of Teslas ideas were "a bit out of here",

but to ridicule the man and diagnose him as a crack pot is totally disingenuous, even if you have your own accomplishments to lean on.

I think there is a bit of selection bias here. 99% of the time when Tesla is brought up (especially on a scienceforum) is when somebody has heard about one of his crackpot ideas and is harping on about how all the crap was supresed by the government and it really works if only somebody would try it.

Of course we're going to talk about Tesla as being a crackpot here because he WAS. He was still an accomplished scientist but he did produce a lot of cracked pottery as well.

I'm quite sure if the situation was reversed and people usually brought up Tesla to talk about his real science that there would be people posting threads like this going:

'Look at this crap, Tesla was a crackpot! why can't you see this etc etc.'

actors used in a movie? no I won't believe it.

Just because he also included time travel in his repertoire, but couldn't duplicate the effect he claimed, is no reason to discount his rights to respect as a scientist.

People only respect the work he did that was actually correct and not riddled with errors in irreproducibility as has been said many times before. He was a good scientest and then he took the train to crazy town and the good work didn't appear so frequently. It happens to a lot of geniuses. Just because they produced good work for some(or even most) of their careers, doesn't mean that EVERYTHING was good.

In science, your work stands on its own merit, not that of its producer.

Teslas correct work is lauded as excellent, his incorrect work is regarded as crap appropriately.

then you get people coming along saying 'but he was so great, why is <insert idea from crazy phase> just dismissed?' well, its because it didn't hold a candle to this little thing called reality.

So, tesla coils: Genius

time travel, matter transmission, free energy etc. : crap

And if anybody is disputing how much scientists like the guy, we name the unit of magnetism after him, the Tesla. Thats like the science hall of fame.

haggis, and on its own its fine. it doesn't need to be tinkered with.

I tend to go more along the lines of:

1/take a dead posh meal.

2/cram as much of it as possible between two slices of bread

3/eat infront of a food snob for maximum enjoyment.

because he was good at one specific area and totally bonkers on others. Most scientists value his work in electronics as some of the best there is, world class science. but then you get the stuff where he started to branch out. none if it makes any sense and if you test it, it falls flat on its face. complete lunacy.

just because the guy was a genius in one subject, does not mean that genius transfers to all others.

For instance, I'm reasonably good at chemistry but don't for the love of god take my advice on what to have for dinner. It is definitely classed as crackpot. tasty crackpot but crackpot none the less.

So it has no effect? Or are you saying that it just isn't matter?

He was saying that actions such as compassion and hatred are intangible things. you can't find a molecule of hatred or compassion. The are emergent properties of interactions, like how gold is yellow coloured as a solid block but if atomised it is purply black.

stop putting words into peoples mouths.

If x!=x then x=x is wrong

1=1 and not 1!=1 then x!=x is also wrong.

x!=x leads to contradictions therefore x=x is true.

Thing is, the earths magnetic field is very weak. Those things turn an alternator at the bottom which has its own magnets that are MUCH more intense. I don't think you're going to get better than it by adding more generating equipment to the blades.

If you're making the blades heavier then you'll reduce the ease with which the air can turn it. I think this would be counter productive.

I understand that you are saying it's different with water, but please allow me this example:

 

I'm boiling water in an open pressure cooker on the stove. I place the lid on the pressure cooker and the water boils more rapidly. Are you saying that if I could melt iron in this way, when I put the lid on (creating more pressure) the iron wouldn't boil more rapidly, but would instead return to a solid state?

The only reason water appears to boil more rapidly with the lid on is that there is resuced convective heat loss when it is heating to boiling point.

The point of a pressure cooker is to make the water boil at a higher temperature. If the pressure cooker has a setpoint of 1 barg then it will boil at 120 degrees celcius.

you are operating on a false assumption. also, boiling point isn't the same as melting point and introducing this will only create confusion. There isn't a gas state at the core of the earth so lets ignore it.

Right, to iron. Iron isn't like water, ANY pressure increase will increase the melting point, there is not period of melting point reduction. if we apply a little bit of pressure, we get a little effect, if we apply more, we get a bigger one.

Now, it takes a LOT of pressure to get a decent effect. Many thousands and millions of atmospheres. Luckily, 6000km of rock can do that easy.

If we were to look at the core of the earth and chat pressure and temperature against the distance from the center, we would see two lines with different gradients. if we translated the pressure line into the melting point of iron at that pressure then we would still see two lines with different gradients.

they would also cross over at a certain distance from the center. on the side nearest the center, the melting point is ABOVE the actual temperature, at the cross over point we have the boundary between the inner core and outer core. This is where the pressure falls low enough that the melting point of iron will fall below the actual temperature. If we were to keep going out and the earth remain being mainly iron eventually as we near the surface the temperature would fall below the melting point of iron again as there is only so far the melting point can drop.

Iron Phase

Have a look at that link. It is a research paper about this exact subject. It includes a phase diagram of iron relating the melting point to pressure (and a few other crystalline phase changes)

duplicate thread, he won't explain his point even in PM

you haven't answered what the point is.

you also haven't addressed the lack of units.

yeah... and this would mean what exactly?

1 would need to have units for it to be valid and it'd only work for a single value of m as it is a variable. but then what? you have the mass equivalent of 1 joule. or whatever unit of energy you apply to the 1

...(water is a marked exception)...

To a point. When you get to pressures where different crystalline phases of ice can exist the melting point will increase again and it will behave like the majority of substances again.

yep, but pressure changes the melting and boiling points of substances.

I can make ice at 50 centigrade. just requires suitible application of pressure.

0+0=0 IS an equation.

in practical terms, If i have zero chickens and I buy zero chickens, I have zero chickens. not one chicken.

also if we assume 0+0=1 then that simplifies to 2*0=1 so 0=1/2 and then 1=0.5

we have contradictions and you can carry this on to all the numbers equal each other. This would render maths useless.

from this, we can conclude that 0+0=1 is false.

I don't get why you think 0 is a place holder. It has a specific value. If 0 is a place holder then so are the other numbers.

stretching it much? if it isnt obvious even with explanation then it isnt there

not really. you'd need to pump out the air and slightly backfill with a noble gas.

at the very least you'd require a vacuum chamber.

easier to buy a new one.