Hades

it would require a large amount of energy to keep the organism from freezing. While doing so, would also have to prevent itself from losing the water due to evaporation from high temperatures. Either way, water is a problem.

a cell, if able to overcome the associated problems with radiation, pressure, and extreme variances of temperature, is still faced with the fact that the water molecules in it would freeze forming crystals that would essentially puncture thru the wall, or outermost cell membrane.

the molarity of the solution is equivalent to moles/liters. .04 Moles / total volume in liters = .04/.250 L = .16 M When determining molarity for this problem, entire volume must be used. Our volume is 250 mL, convert that to Liters and receive .250 L. Yes, u take the # of moles of the initial acetic acid solution. Part 2, the number of moles always stays the same; it is not affected by changes in volume. The number of moles is .0016 before and after.

this man looks like he is about one clean shave away from leading a bunch of misguided individuals to a mass suicide somewhere in the california mountains.

youre not alone.... finishing up orgo II in two weeks, only to return again 5 days later :/

regardless of mathematical principles and general governing of how this could have happened, i still refuse to believe that prior to this beginning, there was only a single point. It must be pushing out on something, something must exist, it never can not exist. If only 1.0x10^-99 of a second after this expansion, it would then immediately bepushing on something, or if not creating then. damn bbl to refine my point

Yes, it will have those. Thankfully enough my so's father is an electrical engineer and it kind enough to guide me thru the process, thoroughly and accurately.

i am not sure but believe it is because the cell walls of a gram negative bacteria have more lipids in them, thus the penicillin has a more difficult time breaking down these compounds.

Also wanted to add that i believe using varying amounts of current, i will receive a wider amount of response from the experimental plants. Im assuming as if read that the higher ampage should kill the plant; to which i hae no objections. I am curious as to how a low level current will stimulate the plant, and i am assuming it too will die, altho slower.

Update: The apparatus was assembled tonite and will be going on in two more days. It consists of an a/c current. i believe this is the correct unit, volts. I am learning slowly about the physics behind the electricity so dont flame me.

Ironically, i was a butcher thruout high school and community college....

at least in the culinary field u could have a 'cookoff' to settle the dispuit. oh, u cant make brulee ?..... well, i can.

my wonderful g/f. folks, this should be a reminder that sharing the same major with your s.o. should be restricted to majors such as art, or the culinary field.

after two hours of arguing, it was revealed she meant to say 'without dna proteins would not exist'. i began to call into question my education; i even brought out the old bio notebooks for quick reference.

Well i was 100% absolutely certain it was a nucleic acid, but im being yelled at and am beginning to question myself

yes to all, therefore the concentration of each is to the -7.

ive taken that into account as well, but was more concerned with the idea of how two identical planets history would align. What created the individual brilliance of the contributors u mentioned could perhaps be brought forth in others. What im saying is purely a generalization, but thinking about how unique one intelligent planet is over another fascinates me. Of course, some things would definately influence originality, such as plate tectonics, asteroids, which brings me to another idea, if for instance the dinosaurs did not undergo a mass extinction, would their presence have had an impact on our individual evolution?

In assuming that a carbon based life began on a planet very similar to Earth, would it be a possibility that the history of our very earth would be in comparison very linear to that of this other world's history? Do u think that certain technological advances would occur at about the same time in evolution; or are we a delayed, or even an advanced culture, relative to our time in this period of planetary consciousness? As im sure it has been asked many times before, do u think that languages would form lunguistically similar to our own?

for some reason i thought it took many more than 400,000 individual atoms to pan the width of a human hair. but an interesting article nonetheless

as the official final fantasy nerd/guru, it is my educated opinion that FFX was, and will always be the best game ever created. 7 was an great game, as was 8. 9 was a thro back to older final fantasies, so albeit some think it was a vaguely boring game, it fulfilled my expectations of the series. But when we get to talking about x, i can go on endlessly, as u can tell.

as terrible as an interview i went on the other day where i blanked out the simple formula for molality... MOLALITY of all things..... general chem one for god's sake..

thats rather unfortunate. If your only gripe is a professional in the medical field should not be allowed to be near your genitalia, then im afraid that is of your least concern if this could potentially be something harmful. We dont know what else to say. U have taken a step in the right direction by asking strangers for advice, but u will get nothing more than that. Did u know that an actual doctor has replied to your thread with an acknowledgement to see a physician? Im sorry to say that we can not determine what the problem is and then give u a simple remedy like eating boiled pistachio shells and catfish entrails to solve this msytery.

atoms, as u know, have a specific number of electrons respectively. These electrons circle the nucleus on orbitals. Orbitals themselves can house a certain number of electrons each shell, or orbital. For instance, Helium, the 2nd element has two electrons. The very first electron shell can contain two electrons. When the last shell of an element is full, it is a stable atom. Lithium for instance, has 3 electrons. One more than He. This third electron is on the next shell; and is considered 1 out of 8 possible electrons on that shell. This trend continues until it reahes Neon, where a new shell begins. Now, this also poses a problem for elements not in group 8, since all elements in group 8 are 'typically' stable. All matter tends to favor equilibrium; from water in a glass, to diffusion, equilbrium is a balance. An atom of Hydrogen has one electron. This one electron is on the first shell, which from before, can hold 2 electrons. But, since this Hydrogen atom only has one electron, the shell is unstable. In order to remedy this problem, the Hydrogen atom will bond with another atom and share its electron. When electrons are shared, more often than not, the entire molecule becomes stable. Lets say the H atom, with one electron to remind you, is near another H atom. Both are equally unstable. What will happen is the two atoms will share each others electrons, essentially borrowing the electron from the other atom to fill in the energy shell. By filling in the energy shell, the atom becomes stable. Since a Helium atom already has its outermost shell already filled, it is stable, and therefore is reclusive when looking at a good portion of reactions. Imagine now a Carbon atom. This carbon atoms outermost electron shell is only half filled, with four valence electrons (valence electrons are electrons that are on the outer orbital.) To suffice this atoms natural tendency to reach equilibrium, it will gain four electrons. If a carbon bonded to another carbon, it would share 4 electrons on top of its very own 4 electrons, thus filling that shell. Or, it could have 4 hydrogens bond to its 4 valence electrons. Each hydrogen has 1 electron to offer, which will suffice not only the carbons desire to fill its shell, but also the Hydrogen too! (im very bored)

if your experimental results were smaller than your theoretical, then it is negative. 20 - 19 = 1. 18- 19 = -1 -1 / 19 = -5.3%

experimental is the actual numbers u obtained from performing the experiment; theoretical is the number your experiment has been calculated to be and is the generally accepted numerical value. determining your % error is simple, as wolfson said before. when u have determined your result, and know the theoretical result which should be given to you, then: take your result (experimental) and subtract it from the theoretical. then take this answer and divide by the theoretical value. Take this value, and multiply by 100. that is your %. experimental - theoretical theoretical x 100 % 10 - 10 = 0. 0 / 10 = 0. 0 x 100% = zero. 20 - 19 = 1. 1/ 19 = .0526 ....... .0526 x 100% = 5.26% got it?