Fuzzwood

Age has nothing to do with science either. Laws of physics hold no matter when you were born.

You might want to read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Also, science doesn't care about your beliefs, nor is it influenced by it. So please leave your favorite deity at the door when you wish to discuss science.

Contents listings can be misleading, but aren't all foods supposed to have a table listing things like total energy, fats, carbohydrates, salts, etc as well? Something like this should be clear as day: carbohydrates 76g of which 17 g are sugars.

My guess is that you need to learn (basic) mathematics, calculus and physics first. THEN try to tell that people who did learn all these things and much more forgot something in their theories.

You know that you only worked with the condensed form of the equation, with the assumption of a rest mass?

Your entire fist will shatter because of the effect of impulse.

So his entire physics ramble consists of people being magnets? I totally see us attracting iron now.

And which pesticide are you talking about?

Not trying to be off topic (as I do see merits in your posts), I think one of the related issues can be found in this youtube vid: To summarize: Jamie Oliver shows a selection of vegetables to small childern. Hardly any of the products are recognized. Not sure how the supermarkets in the US are stocked, but this is how a vegetable rack looks like in the Netherlands: So if there are only processed foods available in the US and contain either too much fats or sugars, or worse both, then you indeed have a point.

Agree? Yes in the same way that eating too much arsene will kill you. It's the dose that matters and since no-one is really force feeding you sugar (ergo. look at the label before you toss a product in your cart) I see no problem A majority of Africa tends to disagree with you, at least those who survived last starvation wave.

Because glucose, fructose and other hexoses and pentoses are fuels for our body. I would like to see how long you last without those compounds. Don't put up a strawman to try to facilitate less socially accepted hobbys.

Even oxygen is toxic. You cannot survive in a 100% oxygen atmosphere because it damages your lungs severely over time.

Because religion is made by people and people are inherently irrational.

Because there is energy stored in C-C bonds, something that formaldehyde doesn't have. Easy peasy. Also, CH2 does not exist. Why do you think it does? You cannot exceed -29.92 inches Hg btw. That's because our atmosphere exerts exactly this pressure over an absolute vacuum, which is simply the absence of everything. You cannot go lower than nothing. Also, you cannot reach below about -29.45 inches Hg using a water seal because water simply boils if it reaches that underpressure.

Theoretically, yes as one of the reaction products is water, the other one is a salt and the third is carbon dioxide.

It IS, however a ketone. But the arising issue here is while sugars are hydroxycarbonyl molecules, hydroxycarbonyl molecules don't have to be sugars.

I meant voltage regulators to the components themselves. I have seen bad power supplies fluctuate between 12.50 and 11.50V under load while a better brand fluctuated between 12.05 and 11.95V under load.

Cheap power supplies have bad voltage regulators. If you have voltage-sensitive parts, those could be damaged by being under or overpowered.

Yes, that's why it is a cow, not a whale. Diversification usually comes with specialization.

Also note that, even through society has chosen otherwise, man is still polygamous.

Because there is more to this than just applying voltage. Perhaps you still might want to pick up that science book people suggested you did. Also, I'd like to repeat imatfaal's link: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37193-no-you-cant-make-sodium/

The issue is conductivity. Salt in its solid form does not conduct because there are no ions to conduct. Both salt in solution and salt in molten form has split into ions and thus can conduct.

Although it is in the 4th main group and thus you would expect it to lose four elektrons to gain octet configuration, it has empty orbitals to which filled orbitals of other atoms can bond with. So normally you would expect Sn(OH)4 as a neutral compound, in basic environments it can take up to 2 additional bonds, effectively gaining an elektron from each of them to obtain Sn(OH)62-. Note that the valency of Sn is still (IV).

Whatever floats your boat man.