MigL

I'm not sure the forum discussion process is suitable for that. I know you often try, but I think the best we can do is 'steer them' in the right direction. Thanks. I wasn't sure; my last Chemistry course was a long time ago ( Gr. 13 in 76/77 ).

I think you need a quick tutorial on the Lewis representation of bonds. Other than the first row of the Periodic table, which has a maximum of 2 electrons in its 1S orbital, all others contain up to 8 ( 2S, 2P, ... ), because the central Transition Metals can be disregarded ( their outer electrons are not valence, but rather conduction ). Atoms, whether free or bonded to others are 'happiest' when their lowest orbitals are full with 8 electrons, so sometimes they steal, or sometimes borrow, electrons from their bonded neighbor. Two dots, inline between neighboring atoms is equivalent to a line ( .. > - ). Four dots, where two are inline is equivalent to two lines ( :: > = ). And this can go to three lines or ( possibly ? ) to four. Sometimes this electron 'book-keeping does not take the protons in the nucleus into account, so when one of the pair 'steals' electrons from the other, you end up with 'excess' charge on opposite ends, and this ionic bond is polar ( as Studiot and KJW are discussing above ). A simple example would be water ( H2O ) where the electronegative Oxygen ( 6 protons ) now has 8 electrons due to uneven sharing, making its side negative, while leaving the Hydrogen sides with an excess positive charge. You know, your best resource for learning IS your teacher ( at least until you have enough foundational knowledge, discipline and confidence for self-learning ). If something is not explained to your satisfaction, keep asking questions; they owe you this knowledge.

Again, what does this mean ? I assume microcosm is in quotes because you are giving it a non-standard definition. You're going to supply a citation for this also ? I don't remember reading any Einstein where he says the geometric ( space-time ) field is a "substance'. Or are you assigning a non-standard definition to substance also. Energy, not being a substance, is a property of photons. As such, a pair of high energy photons ( gamma ) can give rise to a a couple of particles with the property of mass ( obeying conservation laws, of course ) with additional energy supplying the property of momentum to those particles. Clearly the energy of the photons is greater than that of the particles.

I don't know what that means. Re you considering entropy a form of un-useable energy ? While massless non-matter has no valid frame, it does have a 'travel' time of d/c.

No. If y is larger than x the relation is not satisfied.

Valence refers to the number of electrons in the valence band, OR, the available positions that can be filled in the valence band. There are, except for certain special orbital states, 8 electrons and available positions in the valence band where bonds to other atoms are made by 'sharing' electrons.

Of course it does, I'm not condemning it. It's a great accomplishment and the beginning, but it's not the end, don't forget that. Not only do you not know what you are talking about, you don't seem to understand what others are telling you either.

It is unfortunate that one of the biggest breakthroughs ( as numerous others have mentioned ), mRNA vaccine tech, which can be 'built up' to target various specific infections and has the potential to save so many lives around the world, is seen by many people as dangerous and an attack on their 'freedoms'. It is seen as an 'opinion' not as factual. We may be entering an age in which science and technology ( like Religion and Nationhood previously ) is used to control people, and like the internet/social media is already doing.

No. Learn a little of the science and you'll realize why. IOW, ask about QM, a well-defined science; not a human defined abstraction like 'intuition'.

In Canada, our 'Head of State' is a Monarch from another country, through a representative, the GG, in ours. As is the British Monarchy, the office is purely symbolic and serves mainly to rubber stamp Parliamentary decisions. But it seems to work pretty well. I suspect there will be increased emphasis on gerrymandering and voter suppression during the next year. If D Trump loses the support of a majority of sycophants in the House and Senate after the mid-terms, his powers will be greatly curtailed. He will essentially be a 'lame duck', and it can't come soon enough.

You two are ganging up on me, eh 😃 The map/territory allegory is not one I use often, but I do often stress the difference between the model and the reality. The one HAS to be a limited subset of the other, otherwise the model would be the reality. But I did appreciate KJW's post.

Two of the most predictable wars in world history have resulted in World Wars. Both acted like stacks of dominoes; once set in motion, there was only one inevitable outcome. The worst part, for Germany, was that about a year into either war, they knew that loss was unavoidable. Knowing what was coming didn't stop them. Knowing the outcome didn't stop them.

@KJW +1 for everything except the map/territory part. All maps I've ever seen have an 'edge'; no territory does.

And you have no idea what getting a PhD entails. At that level, it is not memorizing presented facts in order to pass a test, but involves a great deal of original research, theoretical or experimental. And his posts readily indicate he knows what he is talking about; yours, sadly, do not.

SAP logical ? That piece of crap is so counter-intuitive, if I don't use it for any period of time, I have to re-learn it from scratch. Sometimes too many bells and whistles make things less useful. Same with process suites like DeltaV ( especially cheaper versions of it ), but I used to love the old Siemens APACS.

That is evident to quite a few except yourself, it seems.

Keep in mind that amounts and 'strength' of the various chemical ingredients also matter. Toothpaste, for example, may contain Fluorides, Peroxides, Bicarbonate, and various surfactant soaps. The MSDS of all these will tell you they are not good. Similarly, cosmetics often contain Peroxides as a 'drying' agent for the skin. 20% hydrogen Peroxide will burn skin and leave a white ( no color ) contact patch, and as little as 3% will cause your eyes to immediately go 'blood-shot' if you mistake the storage with the disinfecting solution for your soft contact lenses ( personal experience from over 30 yrs ago ).

You are not discovering anything; you are attempting to build a model that describes the workings of what has already been discovered by experiment and observation. And you are not doing it very well, as you don't constrain your model by the experimental and observational discoveries, nor building a self-consistent mathematical model which can make quantitative predictions. And furthermore, when called out on these failing aspects of your 'model' ( very loose term ), you whine about it and blame others for pointing out your deficiencies. If you don't like the criticism you've gotten on this forum, you can always direct your web browser to another site.

And you still ignore Swansont's suggestion. Another misunderstanding ?? Its getting to the point that whenever ( much more often lately ) someone presents a groundbreaking fundamental new 'theory', and they refer to it as a 'framework', I immediately think it was a crackpot idea, developed with considerable ( but incorrect help ) from an AI, and I refuse to read it, much less follow any provided links. Maybe I'm getting jaded, but I can't get excited or interested in the many new fundamental ideas presented in the last several months.

Not quite. Focal length matters. Haven't got a clue what the rest of your post is going on about.

I would agree. Those 'experiences' are a result of self-awareness. As far as I can tell, self-awareness is not a learned trait. Humans are born self aware; babies don't care about anything else, only things that make themselves content or uncomfortable. Self-awareness is in the 'wiring' not the 'program'.

There seem to be quite a few Brits in the area of my home town, a place called St. Angelo dei Lombardi ( earthquake in 1980 ), near Avellino. They have bought up homes in the surrounding small towns to use as summer cottages, or even live there full time. I still own a home/property there and will be visiting more often once I retire. People are friendly, life is relaxed, and food and drink are fantastic. Very little to do for young people, so they tend to move North for work and only vacation in the area during August.

Oh, you must be a farmer from Iowa ... 😄😄

Nice wine, but go an extra step with a good Amarone. I know the Basilicata region ( just South of my home town ), but are you sure you don't mean Matera, the ancient city with cave dwellings ?

Enough anecdotes will make a data set. I, myself, was shy and introverted all through my teens and high school; read a lot, wore glasses,didn't participate in sports, and had little social life. In University, I seemed to have much more free time, was partying in clubs most every night, started working out in a gym the summer I finished high school, got contact lenses, became much more confident, and had an active social life. I had the same genetic make up during these times, but the circumstances of my environment had changed, whether through my own doing, or external factors. I know of many other such anecdotes and I'm sure others do too; how many do you need to call it a data set ?