thedarkshade

The solubility of oxygen in water decreases with the increase in temperature. This also affects water's ability of auto-purification.

No, not at all. You can be a great scientist and a christian at the same time.

Who says it makes you a lesser scientist. No one is saying that just not believing makes you a bit more science-y than you are. In science you are judged by what you are able to do and how good are you at what you do, and completely ignoring your beliefs. Those are personal beliefs and opinions and have nothing to do with a professional science job. No one is saying that religious scientists are bad scientists. Whether you are or not a good scientist is all shown from the results of your scientific work.

I'd suggest using: [math]PV=nRT[/math] where [math]R=8.314 Jmol^{-1}K^{-1}[/math]

try the link below http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html

I'd say good rhetoric.

Well not religion in the conventional meaning. But if by religion one means the order that exists in organic and inorganic world, the very elegant structure of the world, in that sense I am religious too. But nothing to do with any kind of supernatural being.

Mathematics is the language that scientists have always used to describe the physical universe. Out knowledge of the universe has evolved and along with it our ability to describe it in a mathematical way. It is (I believe) every scientist's dream to come up with a mathematical model that would fit at describing a physical phenomena. And that would be because of the accuracy for which mathematics is so so well known. Any knowledge that comes from mathematical models that fit with explaining physical phenomena, are accurate because of the accuracy of mathematics. I cannot imagine, though you have to leave room for innovations, science without math in it.

Yes that would do just fine. The cell battery is 3.7V I assume?

Removing all air would first require (IMO) isolation of that tunnel, then take our everything. I dunno but this seems too rough to me, even as a thought. But... any practical use out it?

Well this image seems a long, complicated and not efficient way to charge a phone or whatever. As for charging it directly with the battery, wouldn't the different voltage be a problem? You could use a transformer though.

Well then a big merit of Dawkins is that he just spitted out all he had to say, without caring what did particular people think of it.

If what tvp said is correct, then I think that was Einstein's way of being more attractive.

That seemed pretty good and pretty simple. Great work Sysco.

Humans can be very naive sometimes. This has been shown throughout all the history. In ancient times humans found themselves in front of many thing for which they had no clue what they were, how did they form, why do they happen the way they do. And they indeed couldn't have known anything about it. They had no proper rational base in which they cold base their understanding for complicated natural phenomenas. And as they found no better way way, they plugged in something that is still rooted in humanity, the ideas of GOD. For humans at that time, and strangely for humans today still, god seemed a good enough explanation of what was going on. I actually do not see how it actually explains anything, but being omniscient (as they think of him) allows the possibility of being able to do anything, no matter how complicated. But not all humans have been this naive. Some of them had the courage (if it's the right word) to try to understand how things worked, to understand 'the mind of god'. And this courage has gradually evolved and now we live in a time where there really is no need for metaphysical explanations for natural phenomenas which actually offer nothing more than an idea which is thousands of years old but modified through years the give it a fresh taste. A rational person, a person who wants to grasp the universe the way it is, has to put some doubt on everything, even in science, because it is by doubting that you (IMO) are able to understand the real nature of things. And it is the ignorance toward science and fear that science will knock down god that makes inaccurate description of nature still live among people. "Just believe and don't ask questions". It is by this premise that 'they' give themselves the right to make up description for nature, no matter how inaccurate, childish and silly those stories are. I don't think there is (are) such thing(s). I mean, there sure are big differences in complexity between different things, but I really do not think that there is a kinda infinite complicated anything. All the things in the universe have some common features. They belong to the same universe, they all obey the laws of physics. And since everything has these features, then their complexity is reduced by the current knowledge we on the laws of physics and other things that are similar for everything. I don't know if I'm being clear.

WOW:eek: Then use your books. They sure have the answer in there.

Mine is kinda stupid! I mean, how there be a bright shade?! But my friends usually call me shade (since I like walking a lot a night) so I just just added "the dark" (to specify I like walking on "the dark cloudy" nights). I was just a moment's thought really.

This isn't biology AT ALL. Some mod will just put it in the right place

I had a feeling when I read the story that OP posted, but your post just put me down. So much for the grown finger:-(

Wormholes are usually thought as sort of "shortcuts". But it could allow time travel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_and_time_travel And in fiction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormholes_in_fiction

Well because I don't think that only sitting and thinking about it will be enough to get a clear and goood explanation of what alive is. And yes, it is all about science.

Yes, basically! (a chemical bond is the force that keeps the atoms together). Carbon is tetravalent, which means that it can make four bonds. In can be bonded with four other atoms by a singe bond, like in alkanes. It can be bonded by two atoms with a double bond, like in alkenes. And it can be bonded by two atoms , one a triple one and one a single bond. There also can be combinations but the aim is to complete the tetravalence.

You can use [math]V=\frac{m}{M} \times V_m[/math] where: V=volume m=mass M= molar mass Vm = 22.41 Suppose you want to know the volume of 10 g of [ce]O2[/ce] Then you plug the data on the equation: [math]V=\frac{m}{M} \times V_m[/math] [math]V=\frac{10}{32} \times 22.41[/math] [math]V=7.003124[/math]

1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant#Evolution 2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petal ...hope you find something useful in there:-)

The mass of one mole of [ce]H2O2][/ce] is 34.016, so yes, you're correct on that. But this is 100% concentrated, and in 50% you have [math]34.016 /times 0.5 = 17.008g[/math] As you know [ce]H2O2[/ce] decomposes by the following reaction: [ce]2H2O2 -> 2H2O + O2[/ce] So if you want to know how much [ce]O2[/ce] is being released, you can easily calculate that since we have all the data we need. To calculate how much [ce]O2[/ce] is being released, I do it this way: [math]\frac{2\times H_2O_2}{34.016g}=\frac{O_2}{x}[/math] from there x is: [math]x=\frac{O_2 \times 34.016}{2 \times H_2O_2}[/math] and the result would be 16, or for 50% would be 8, so you're OK. The same would apply to water.