studiot

Rather than use big words perhaps you should consider what they mean. Presenting stuff like this is likely to get the backs up of pragmatists, which in turn leads to you responding defensively. The holographic plate image only works down to a certain size of subdivision. If you go smaller it no longer works. And what do you mean by polymorphic ? and what do you mean by 'embed the laws abstractly' ? Having asked that and talking of abstract, you have mentioned abstract in a rather disparaging way before. The english language is particularly blessed because it distinguishes between abstract and concrete nouns and allows that either or both can be every bit as real or not as appropriate. Since you disparage the abstract, conside this When I go to the supermarket, I carry an abstract map in my head, in order to arrive at my destination. I don't carry the whole map at all times, I just deploy the appropriate parts as I go along. Finally you did not respond to my previous comment in this thread

How come you haven't weighed the benfits against the disbenefits ? Was this page generated by AI or is it your own work ?

I agree the ramifications run very wide. +1

If you want something more up to date than Gauss try this little book. Professor De Sautoy even delves into the connection with Physics.

I think that it is not very entertaining but is certainly a distraction. I also think you need to learn some real physics so you don't make elementary mistakes like saying They don't. If you what like to know what they actually do we can explain here far better than some journalist who doesn't understand Science.

I think the main part of the message is that a shell is not an orbital. A shell contains orbitals. And a 2s orbital can hold exactly 2 electrons (not 8), just like any other s orbital. But I am not sure if the op understands the word orbital or the s, p, d etc notation evryone is bandying about here. The question in this thread is at quite a different level from his one about oxides of nitrogen. Like you I am trying to help, but it is difficult to know where to start, without further information.

I'm sure you know this is not quite accurate, perhaps you were trying to simplify too much. It was recognized early on that the electrons are arranged in shells. An individual shell is a collective name for electrons thought to be at a similar distance from the nucleus. They were called shells because it was thought that were indeed shells in space like the layers of an onion. Later is became understood that these shell groupings are actually arranged in terms of energy not spatial separation and actually partially overlap each other. It was also realised that there are also sub groupings within the shells ie the energies of electrons in a given shell are similar but not necessarily the same. Originally these shells were also called K, L, M N and so on. (capital letters) When subsehells were intorduced the letters were replaced by a new system, using numbers instead K, L, M, N etc being replaced by 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. The subshells were then labelled with lower case letters, s, p, d, f and so on It is the shells that are being considered for the octet rule. Ammonia is a neutral molecule. Pure substances (matter) can comprise molecules, which can be further divided into pure elements. And elements which cannot be divided. An atom is the smallest particle of an 'element' of matter. A molecule is the smallest particle of a pure substance. But it can be divided into atoms of consitiuents elements.

It would be more true to say that only H sap has developed atomic weapons.

The USA was behind the UK in requiring the wearing of seatbelts, and subsequently the UK introduced requirements for placing animals either behind an impenetrable screen or in a suitable restraint harness. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing as the subject is the legal implications of AI use. Also authorities with some legal powers are increasingly using private sub contractors, who do not share these powers but sometimes act as if they do. There have been several cases recently in the news where these contractors demanded £!0,000 for overstaying parking and after loosing cases in the high court, put out statements claiming they are 'in the right.'

I don't agree, though it does depend upon your definition of morality. If you take @joigus definition certainly other higher animals display some measure of taking cause and effect into account.

The traffic authorities have announced that a by pass near me is to get a package of AI cameras to try ti improve the safety record of this stretch of road. Apparantly the AI will monitor for such things as not wearing seat belts, talking on the phone whilst sriving, eating whilst driving, children and animals incorrectly secured in the cabin and so on. Considering all the recent discussions about AI lying to us to satisfy its programming, how should we consider evidence of wrongdoing provided by AI ?

Sadly from what I know of history religions have starved more people than they have fed, killed more people than they have saved or cured. Some have been worse than others it is true - there is a range of net harm done by religions.

Clearly the OP was having a problem or he would not have started this thread. So I don't see how saying that you don't see a problem is helpful. There is no one right approach. Once we know where he is coming from we can help him chart his own path through a complicated subject.

This approach present difficulties, even at introductory level. One of the examples in the OP is the carbonate ion, and I have already mentions the ammonium ion. These are chemical species, not atoms and the OP actually heads the table 'molecule/ion' to acknowledge this. Molecules, like atoms are electrically neutral, unlike the ion species and the OP avoids allocating formal charge to any atom in the carbonate. In contrast, atomic charge allocation works in the neutral HNO3 molecule. But what about when it dissociates ?

I think @HbWhi5F is just starting to study bonding in a pretty conventional way. This is to distinguish and identify two types of bonds viz ionic and covalent bonds and understand the difference between them and also understand the equation Number of bonds + Number of unbonded outer electrons = total number of outer electrons in each atom. More advanced schemes like sigma Pi delta bonds, metallic bonding, hydrogen bonbding and so on come later as do molecular orbitals, resonance and other stuff. Here I don't think our OP is yet clear about ionic and covalent bonding. Often the questions Why do atoms bond at all ? are never asked Similarly for why do chemical reactions happen ? So HbWhi5F, have you done any quantum theory at all ? Have you heard of 'orbitals' ?

Be careful to distinguish between a catalyst, which is not present in the products of the reaction, and an accelerant such as lighter fuel which accelerates fires (oxidation) and is used up in the reaction.

And I wasn't since the resultant species are all electrrically neutral (unlike say the ammonium ion). Charge bookkeeping leads to seriously difficulties with later more advanced stuff. Agreed except that an in-depth tutorial would be more beneficial. This is partly why I asked what is being studied as there are many other subjects that consider chemical bonding besides Chemistry itself.

A donated electron = an ionic bond Which is polar (has a negative end and a positve end) A shared electron = a covalent bond A shared electron = a covalent bond where the atom looses (donates) a part only share in one of its electrons but also gains a part shart in an electron from another atom. Thus remains electrically neutral.

I will answer this, even though you did not respond to my question abour homework in the maths thread. Please tell us a bit more about what you are studying (not personal details) as it helps enormously in answering. OK so firstly the Oxygen molecule O2 What you need to understand to start with is that the bonding atoms have two types of electrons. Those electrons involved in the bond with another atom or bonding electrons. these are represented in lewis by lines, not dots. and Those which are not involved in the bonding or non bonding electrons. These are represented in lewis by dots not lines So the oxygen molecule is symmetrical. Neither of the oxygen atoms are different, both have 6 electrons represented in lewis by four non bonding dots and two lines ( a double bond) The bonding is purely covalent since no + or - signs appear against any atom. Now look at the ozone molecule. Firstly what you call the atom with four electrons actually has six Four non bonding dots and two double bond lines this is just like each atom in the O2 molecule. Next the atom with the + sign has 5 electrons two non bonding dots two double bond electrons and one single bond electron. That is it has lost one electron so is positive. Finally the last oxygen atom has gained that electron and has a negative sign by it So it has six non bonding dots and one single bond electron, making seven in all. The bond between the last two oxygen atoms is therefore partly (50%) ionic and partly covalent. So in Lewis covalent bonds are shown with a line and Ionic bonds with a + and - to show complete electron transfer. Following this reasoning can you work through your other examples for yourself and come back with any further questions ? I will answer this, even though you did not respond to my question abour homework in the maths thread. Please tell us a bit more about what you are studying (not personal details) as it helps enormously in answering. OK so firstly the Oxygen molecule O2 What you need to understand to start with is that the bonding atoms have two types of electrons. Those electrons involved in the bond with another atom or bonding electrons. these are represented in lewis by lines, not dots. and Those which are not involved in the bonding or non bonding electrons. These are represented in lewis by dots not lines So the oxygen molecule is symmetrical. Neither of the oxygen atoms are different, both have 6 electrons represented in lewis by four non bonding dots and two lines ( a double bond) The bonding is purely covalent since no + or - signs appear against any atom. Now look at the ozone molecule. Firstly what you call the atom with four electrons actually has six Four non bonding dots and two double bond lines this is just like each atom in the O2 molecule. Next the atom with the + sign has 5 electrons two non bonding dots two double bond electrons and one single bond electron. That is it has lost one electron so is positive. Finally the last oxygen atom has gained that electron and has a negative sign by it So it has six non bonding dots and one single bond electron, making seven in all. The bond between the last two oxygen atoms is therefore partly (50%) ionic and partly covalent. So in Lewis covalent bonds are shown with a line and Ionic bonds with a + and - to show complete electron transfer. Following this reasoning can you work through your other examples for yourself and come back with any further questions ?

I'm sorry there's no easy or kind way to put this. Your post is not reasoning at all. It is piling fantasy upon fantasy and contains not a single scrap of supporting evidence or reaaoning. No just because something is small does not make it 'impossible to measure.' The only circumstance that I can think of where something can be declared impossible to measure would be that it has no effect whasoever on material objects. You have already been told that energy is a property, not a substance, yet you press on, invoking yet more undeclared statements of Einstein. And in any case I thought this thread was about time , not energy.

I very much doubt that Mordred said exactly that since energy is not a substance or a thing. If you want to offer it please find the quote. My comment about fields is much more general than that. I did not mention photons, in my view they are a complete red herring. However I would agree with you headline title. Possibly the best we can do is to make specific definitions for a specific purpose, knowing that this definition is incomplete but does the joj in hand.

Is this homework ?

No as time also applies to non material things like fields. You can't just postulate something and leave it at that. You haven't even shown that your two postulates are compatible with each other. You haven't done anything with those postulates, you seem to be leaving others to do all the work. Note for relativity Einstein made two postulates and demonstratd that theya re compatible. Then he did lots with them.

Since you haven't fully addressed my first reply, that is come up with a reasoned prediction of the interval of non primes, your only method of proof is the method of exhaustion. This method is of course impossible for an infinite sequence, unlike the proof of the four colour theorem which was only difficult.

Yes you are right, I got a bit mixed up. I have a spanish neighbour who makes them. In England we call them spanish omlettes, to distinguish from the french original name.