studiot

Well humans have known for thousands of years that milk 'goes off' if you try to store it in the ordinary atmousphere. And they further found out that the warmer the climate the quicker this happens. But one day some genius (we don't know who or when) found out that there were two types of "going off". One type led to definitely unpalatable, posibly poisonous, result. The other type tasted different but not unpalatable and seemed nourishing. A further benefit accrued in that the eatable fermented products lasted longer, especially in warmer climates. Today we have identified the many different organisms that cause either type of of fermentation and can produce a huge range of fermented or cultured products. Equally today we can preserve ordinary milk for comparable periods so it becomes largely a matter of personal taste. Because we have some of these organisms or similar naturally in our own gut which play a part in our own digestion, consumed cultered products may help those with weak intestines or after illness. Originally these products were made exclusively from millk and the organisms and flavourings. But today many manufacturers substitute cheaper ingredients such as cornflour, gelatin or even air to increase their profits. Finally some products contain the organisms still live, most have have dead organisms killed by a pastuerisation process.

The short answer is : He didn't. Avogadro was a lawyer turned Physicist. He was not a chemist. Although in his day there was not real distinction between Physics and Chemistry. I see you have some other names in your list. During the end of the 17hundreds and into the early 18hundreds what are known as 'the gas laws' were discovered and some of the these were associated with Torricelli and Boyle. There was a problem however in that careful weight measurements could not be reconciled with the idea that each element had a smallest particle called an atom. In 1811 Avogadro published a paper in French (although he was Italian) which now appears in every school textbook as At the same temperature and pressure equal volumes of gas contain the same number of molecules. Avogadro did not use the word molecule in our modern sense he meant particle. But he did include the words "if you assume that the smallest particles of an element may be made up of more than one atom. " This and our modern version make up Avogadro's Hypothesis. An Austrian named Loschmidt was the first to calculate the number of these particles, but he worked on a cubic centimetre. The modern version we call Avogadro's number in his honour is arrived at on the basis of molecular weight. The molecular weight of a substance is the sum of the atomic weights of all the atoms making up the molecule. The atomic weight of Hydrogen is 1 and the atomic weight of Carbon is 12 So looking back at our ethane molecule. This has 2 carbon atoms and 6 hydrogen atoms So the molecular weight of ethane is (2 x 12) + (6 x 1) = 30 I did ask last time if you have heard of the kinetic theory of gases. To understand more detail this is needed so an answer would be appreciated.

Then I will leave it to those who understand it. Good night.

I didn't say it was. You need to read the whole book to understand that he has one main point to make which is that there is only one quantum field that encompasses the entire universe and everything in it. Further that this one field describes everything and answers all the problems we encounter if we try to split it in separate fields. It follows that if anything or any one in the universe is conscious, however you define that state, it is described by the universal field. Nor did I say whether I agreed or disagreed with it. I was simply pointing out its existence and where to find it for anyone interested enough to look.

Don't be ridiculous. Links are for websites; I provided adequate reference in conventional form for you to be able to identify the book. If you were to read it I can only assume you would find out that Carroll states many times exactly the opposite of the false impression you have gained from a synopsis I have not seen.

With how much respect should I view a person who says and then says this Have just looked at of one small part of the book and gained an entirely false impression ?

All there is to know about it is a big ask. Try some more specifically focused questions. But remember the moderators like one topic per thread. But also think before you print as new members are only allowed 5 posts in their first 24 hours. After that it is unrestricted.

It's a book. Remember them ?

Is anyone aware that linking QM and consciousness is embedded in Sean Carroll's version of the "many worlds interpretation" ? Something Deeply Hidden Sean Carroll

Yes this is a discussion forum, not your blog. So instead of coming preaching to real physicists, I respectfully suggest you ask if they already have such units. Have you heard of the barn or the astronomical unit or the light-year ?

Don't worry, no need to quit. Sir Isaac Newton did not know why things stuck together he just had to accept it because he could see that it happened. Here are his words from a very long article in the link at the top of the quote. He was right, there is a force, he knew nothing of, which we will discover is the electric force between positive and negative when we move on to the last 1900 to present day period. I offer the philosophy that you can learn enough of the maths, physics and chemistry to be able to recognise things when you see them (not only here but in books or elsewhere) and accept that ther are people who can work out the detail. Remember that no one person knows enough to work out the detail of everything. So we must cooperate like atoms in a molecule. That is the principle I am trying to build up to. Molecules can only works as the cooperative effort of several (perhaps many) atoms acting as one single unit or entity. So if my detail was too much, just accept you can recognise the sticks as bonds in the stick diagrams.

There is a lot to consider when you investigate the geometry, structure and composition of something using radiation of some sort, including sound or other mechanical waves or pulses. The maths to understand principles of this is not too difficult. It is the extraction of the detailed numbers that requires thye sophisticated stuff, correctly applied. For instance you need to decide whether you are going to use transmitted, refracted or reflected rays. If using direct transmission as with X rays you need access to both sides of the object / material. This can be a major difficulty. Single side access can be accomplished using reflected rays. The wavelength determines the size of feature, void or discontinuity you can determine. We can discuss this further if you wish.

Thank you for responding to my query about frames, even if the reply was short. When I first read this I wondered if you are confusing the relativistic origin of magnetism ..... But We still have no diagram.

Please explain why we should search for this and why you have not included a tasty summary to temp us. As a matter of interest, what does Plato have to say about it ? https://plato.stanford.edu/

This table might help and it will be useful in time period 4 the last in our history. I am showing what happens with one gas that doe not combine with itself (helium) and three gases where two atoms of each of the gases combine with each other to form one molecule conprising two atoms. That is a diatomic molecule. Helium is a monatomic molecule. The valencies are 0, 1, 2 3 - I don't know of any diatomic gas molecules formed from atoms with higher valencies than 3. So the pattern is that you require two atoms , alike or different to form one bond. - my examples are both alike for ease. It is also possible to more than two atoms to combine to form molecule but that will always involve additional bonds. Note the number of hooks is the same as the valency. If you hook two hooks together you get one bond. If you have zero valency there are no hooks which is why two helium atoms will not join together so a helium molecule has only one atom in it and is called monatomic. side note Careful here, you may come across the terms monovalent, divalent and trivalent. There is no term for nil valent. end side note Molecules occur mostly in gases. Solids can be quite different. Do you understand anything about solids, liquids and gases. Have you heard of the kinetic theory ?

Electrolysis preparation is apparantly more common in the US than the UK. I do not know about Europe or other places.

I'm sorry, what did you want to say ? An explanatory diagram would help greatly her. Observed ? Observed by whom, in what frame ? greater charge density ? greater than what ? length contraction again observed by whom in what frame ?

The [0,1] map is probably the standard way of doing this but there are others eg in ternary.

Just a human thought about consciousness. We are now beginning to probe and perhaps understand the interactive relationships between plants, particularly trees, and soil mycelium. Since this is new territory there is no reason to suppose that such relationships can be set in the same terms as ones we understand much better and know far more about. So I must agree with Gees. I suggest we need new terminology, concepts and all the apparatus for these new lines of enquiry. Until these are established we can expect heated discussions set in inappropriate terms.

Solubility constant for calcium carbonate is 1000 time less than for calcium hydroxide, so yes you will remove some calcium carbonate and be left with a sodium carbonate solution, sightly enriched with sodium hydroxide. How are you going to unmix that ?

Who are 'they' ? We try to be more specific in Science. But this story is a good example of how Science works. Science does not work on proof. It works by using the best explanations available for known observations. If new observations become available that show different results then a scientist has choices. He can propose a new explanation that explains both the old and the new. He can propose that the new observations are the result of different circumstance or different mechanisms and thus require a new hypothesis. He can propose new observatins to test his new theory or hypothesis. Either way Science moves on, improving on the original and waiting for the next new set of different observations. In fact this third period yielded thousands of new compounds all obeying the valency rules I outlined. Ethane is a good example of this as it is a member of what is known as a homologous series of gases , called the alkanes. But what they did not know before 1900 was why the valency rules are as they are. The answer to this will come in the fourth period after the structure of the atom was discovered and is a subject for tomorrow. Suffice to say for now that these hooks are now called chemical bonds. Finally my apologies to anyone reading this, in my last post i got the date of quantivalence wrong. It should be 1865, not 1869. The first English use of valence was in 1869.

Hopefully your continued exposure to chemical selected names and terms is beginning to bear fruit. So let us carry on with unravelling the history of the subject. The ancient Greeks thought there were four elements, Earth, Water Air and Fire and that all substances were made up from these. In fact they used a different word and the word element came into English from the Latin elementum. Furthermore the concept was very vague in detail and one Greek in particular (Democritus) asked the important question. "What happens if you cut a substance in half, then in half again and in half again and so on ?" He proposed that you would eventually reach a stage where the substance became indivisible and called this piece atomos from where we get the English word atom. This situation continued until the late 17 hundreds when Dalton revived the twin concepts and included the new question "If you can cut substances apart, how can you put them together ?" In his words he described atoms as "All atoms of the same element are alike, globular and all of the same magnitude, but atoms of different elements have different weights." Thus moving atoms from substances to elements and making the distinction. It should be noted that 'weights' were not measured in pounds and ounces or kilogrammes. Hydrogen was give the weight exactly 1 unit and other elements were measured as multiples (including decimal fractions) of this. These weights were called atomic weights. This was a great step forward but it did not explain how or why atoms could be combined in 'fixed proportions' to form substances they could split up. Atoms could not be split up i.e. were indivisible. These insights plus the growing list of elements enabled the first versions of the periodic table to be drawn up. But they were wrong because they placed elements in order of increasing atomic weight, which led to inconsistencies in the chemical properties compared to their placement in 'the table'. The table is called periodic because these properties occur at regular spacing when the elements are placed in the proper order. They had not yet addressed the second question "How can you put them togerther?" Then in 1869 Hofmann, then working in england, coined the English word 'quantivalence'. He introduced the concept of Valency or the combining power of atoms and your next equation from chemical mathematics. Atomic weight = Equivalent weight x Valency. This ushered in the third era in the History of Chemistry and led to a new idea - that of the molecule. At that stage, they still though atoms were 'indivisible' they did not know about electrons, protons and neutrons - that comes in the fourth period up to the present day and was largely invetigated by Physicists. So they quickly determined that oxygen has 2 'hooks' , carbon has 4 'hooks' and nitrogen has '3 hooks' and hydrogen has 1 hook. These hooks were also quickly translated into the ubiquitous chemical stick diagrams we still use today. Here is the diagram for 'ethane' where you can quickly see that each carbon is linked by 4 sticks or hooks and each hydrogen is linked by 1 stickk or hook. This is the 'molecule' of pure ethane.

I am unclear exactly what the question is here. However try comparing with other similar compounds, that are better known because they are not so harmful. Key thoughts synthetic (poly) saccharide Non-absorbable interacts with colonic bacteria

Well that is an excellent article. +1 And therein goes the material I was going to use for my next post, so I will just pick out the important points that lead to the conclusion I was going to offer. How we got to our modern view of chemistry can be divided into four broad periods. The ancients began to notice that there were many different substances in the world around them. The substances were different because they had different properties. They were hard or soft, some interacted visibly with other substances. Some did not appear to interact at all and some offered protective qualities for other substances. In particular sometimes winemaking went wrong and an unpleasant sour tasting drink was produced instead of acceptable wine. They did not know that wine had turned to acetic acid but their word for vinegar (which is dilute acetic acid) passed down into the Latin word 'acidus' and from there into English as acid. They would also have noticed other properties of acids such as the sting of formic acid in ant bites and the corrosive effect on the skin. It is not known which hero cook spilled animal fat on the fire and roasted it along with wood ash and then found a soapy blob when the result had cooled. But we think this is how middle eastern civilisations discovered soapmaking this way. The ashes provided an alkaline substance which is breaks down fat, something most acids are unable to do. So their for ashes passed into Arabic, Al-Kali and then into English as alkali. Wood (and other plant ) ashes contain what gardeners and farmers call 'potash' which makes a strong alkali with water that we now call potassium hydroxide. So we have the origins of acids and alkalis. The second historical period when humans were able to refine and classify substances, many of which occurred naturally or as with potash by heating or burning and perhaps then adding water. The addition of water was known as slaking; probably the most known and important product was slaked lime or calcium hydroxide, which formed the basis of Roman cement. To obtain this rocks containing calcium carbonate were heated to obtain what was known a quicklime (which we know as calcium oxide). The was the slaked to produce the hydroxide. Calcium carbonate introduces another acid we call carbonic acid, which is important in environmental chemistry. So during this period many names were introduced that were carried forward to the third period which is for next time. Interestingly these time periods have have been 'telescoping'. The first was measured in thousands of years, the second in hundreds of years, and so on.

Good morning Ken. Sorry to hear of your woes. I too had less than good experiences with linux in the early days so I dropped it as I did not want to learn yet another op system / language. To your issue. What version of Windows are you trying to install with ? I wonder if the hidden boot partition introduced in W10 is causing this ?