studiot

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.

I did say I am not up to date about this, but only 105 ? The largest known prime has over 40,000 decimal digits. 2136,279,841 − 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_prime

As noted this is not my area of Mathematics. I seem to remember such questions were studied in Hardy's book in the subjec, which used to be called 'Higher Arithmetic' (ie university arithmetic). But as far as I remember finding new primes no longer happens very often since the length of sequence is now so enormous that computers are definitely needed.

Thank you for the video. Definitely interesting. I will perhaps say more when my polish friends have translated for me. Meanwhile for the benefit of all you may have noticed that I used 10% flour replacement in my recipe. It is generally allowed to replace around about 10% of the flour with ground nuts, pulses potato I suppose, ground dried peas, or other starchy foods. This % limit retains the bread like structure. Greater replacement can make the cake crumbly and / or soggy. I have the English, French and German cookery books, identical except for the language from when I was trying to keep up my foreigh languages. I recco,mend having the same book with the same pictures and text about something you alredy know stuff about, but in different languages.

I have no idea what you mean by smaller. The clock here is unreliable but it says that you joined 18 hours ago. New members are allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours as a secuity measure. Afte rthat posts are unlimited.

I understand what you are trying to do, but I see a difficulty. I am not a number theory specialist, but as I understand prime number theory. Yes all prime numbers greater than 3 can be expressed in the form 6n±1, where n is a positive integer. However not all numbers of the form 6n±1 are prime. So I see why you are looking for two loops. But the problem, as I see it, is that the pattern of occurence of prime numbers is not regular. This implies that the pattern of occurence of non primes is also non regular. This also implies that you cannot therefore weed out non primes on a regular occurrence basis. Your second loop would have to test each number as generated, and there is no known test for a prime. Note there are some very long regular sequences in the smaller prime numbers.

But I don't think your statement is entirely accurate either. There a many different aspects of that subject you have left out of consideration. Nor have you properly addressed @exchemist statement about time to digest the gluten, although that is also not entirely accurate. For instance for literally thousands of years before europeans colonised the americas they indegenous population had no wheat.. For an even longer time large parts of the population of Africa had no wheat either and similarly the ancient far eastern peoples had rice instead of wheat. Your comment about potatoes is interesting, I have never tried tha. The difference between tortilla of spanish origin v italian origin is also relevant since the spanish version includes potatoes, (not potato flour).

Well it is very useful to know a little something of the religion concerned. And as exchemist so eloquently pointed out (+1), debate is not always necessary as opposed to discussion. For instance materialists don't pray, but whom do non theistic religions pray to, what do they pray for and how do they pray ? This short statement is interestingly informative and quite in line with @exchemist comments. https://studybuddhism.com/en/essentials/what-is/what-is-prayer-in-buddhism That was from article 20 on the website referred, about prayer. Several of the other articles eg 21 Buddhisim and Darwinism would also lead to an interesting discussion.

Interesting if true +1

No I don't see anything in QM that might lead to 'intuition'. QM is deterministic in that QM process follow regular equations (although we don't yet know them all). However you might like to consider this proposal from the opening chapter of the 2024 science prize book because 'intuition' may be Bayesian. I admit that the book is somewhat biased towards Bayesian statistics and prediction.

I don't see the relevance of this. Pancakes are not bread, nor are they pizza base. By the way the Romans invented pizza. Throughout the world there are many sorts of what are called flatbreads, which generally do have yeast in them. But some of these are 'unleaven bread' and made without yeast. Bread of this type is mentioned in the bible. For pancakes I don't see that the diameter of them is relevant. You should also be aware that the americans use the word biscuit quite differently from Europeans, including the British. There are other forms of flat cake, some with raising agent, some without. Indians make japatis from sesame flour. The Scots make 'dropscones' on a griddle. The Welsh make welshcakes on a griddle they call a bakestone. The lightest possible sponge cake has no raising agent. Air is beaten into the mix until the mix is stiff.

Hello Nexus and welcome. Hopefully you will stay long enough to read all the responses on your next vist. internet forums do not always provide instant replies like social media. How well do you understand graphs ? If you look back over history you will find the pace of scientific (and other) change varies. In some periods of time it goes fast and there is a lot of innovation. But in others there does not appear to be much change at all. In reality this is a distorted picture because these quieter periods are often periods of consolidation because new ideas rarely have an immediate effect. They take time to replace older ones that people already have significant investment in.