Jump to content

Iota

Senior Members
  • Posts

    420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Iota

  1. http://lessons.chemistnate.com/uploads/5/0/2/9/5029141/__4177903.png?223

     

    I'm having trouble understanding how the 4th line is derived from the 3rd line, would anyone mind explaining to me?

     

    I understand how the RHS (right hand side) is merely being simplified, but why exactly does it become -1 over T1 and T2? To make -delta Hvap positive, would be the simple answer I suppose, but why does it work?

     

    In other words could you point out the rules in maths for this kind of rearranging?

     

    Thanks!

     

     

  2. If anything philosophy lead to science. Religion hinders science and is incompatible with it.

     

    Man created religion before science (as we know it today) existed.

     

    Science is the result of man's search for answers, much like religion in that respect. However, only one of the two practices actually works.

  3. Hi everyone

     

    Rapid question:

     

    Imagine a reaction between a 0,4 M NaOH-solution and a 0,2 M HCl-solution with equal volume. What are the concentrations then of Na(+), OH(-), Cl(-) and H(+) at equilibrium?

     

    I'd assume that where you've said 'equilibrium' that you mean "reaction completion". If it were an equilibrium, you'd need a dissociation constant value in order to work out equilibrium concentrations.

    Note that volumes are equal, therefore the molar ratio between NaOH and HCl is 2:1 respectively. Therefore you don't need to do anything to those values, you simply need a balanced equation, as you already have done.

     

     

    0,2 moles of OH(-) could react with 0,2 moles of H(+) to form H2O.

    0,2 moles of OH(-) left in a volume of 2 liters, so a concentration of 0,1 M OH(-). <--- where did you get 2 litres from?

    0,4 moles of Na(+) left ... so 0,2 M Na(+)

    0,2 moles of Cl(-) left ... so 0,1 M Cl(-).

    This is also the correct answer.

     

    There's 0.2M Cl- from the 0.2M NaCl produced.

     

    There's 0.4M Na+ from the 0.2M NaOH not reacted, plus the 0.2M NaCl produced.

     

    There's 0.2M OH- from the 0.2M NaOH not reacted.

     

    Now, my problem is: I'd like to say that there's still OH(-) and H(+) in H2O, but why can't you .. you know? Bring them into account or however you may say it? So, I'd say you still have 0,4 moles of OH(-) and 0,2 moles of H(+)... Why not?

     

    The reason you don't include water is because it does not behave ionically. That is, it does not dissociate into ions; it's covalent.

     

    NaCl, HCl and NaOH are all ionic. HCl is a special case because it is actually covalently bonded, however it behaves ionically in solution.

  4. There's speculation that in the future the West will perhaps adopt a more Asian diet of insects. There's far more of them, far easier, more environmentally friendly and economical for a population to eat. Healthy too.

  5. Another good question would be why does Jesus look white in almost every depiction, when he was a middle-eastern Jew. I'm guessing he wouldn't be quite so worshipped in the West if he resembled the stereotypical 'terrorist' look, which he almost certainly would have.

  6. I do not memorize the exact words in the Bible , but they mean (people will hate you because of my name), and by believing in his name we obtain strength against our enemies.

     

    That's alright. Nobody ever does, just pick the bits you like and ignore the rest.

  7. No, I should of said something else, but if something is falling down an escalator, and the escalator is going up fast enough, then it will never stop falling...

     

    Ah right lol, didn't come across that way at first but I get you now. :P

  8.  

     

    If sexuality is a nature, then why does homosexuality exist, because it completely goes against the basic need for parents to ensure the survival of the next generation. You can all agree with me that in nature, the main thing that all parents want is to ensure the survival of their children, so they can grow up and have children and so on. Being gay, or lesbian, eliminates the ability to have your own natural kids (being gay eliminates it all together), so doesn't that go completely against the need to ensure the survival of the species, by making there no next generation?

     

    For someone so intent on holding their own theory on the topic, it astounds me to see that you clearly not bothered learning any of the science surrounding the matter.

     

    -Sexuality being natural in no way or form contradicts its ability to occur or exist.

     

    -Being homosexual may result in many homosexuals not having children of their own, that does NOT mean the genes resulting in homosexuality won't be passed on. The gene that results in homosexuality occurring can be recessive in the siblings of a gay person, and therefore be passed on by their heterosexual siblings.

     

    Prenatal hormonal exposure affects the development of a foetus (obviously), and if a male foetus is exposed to a lot of female hormone in the womb, it can cause them to develop more feminine traits. The same is true for female foetuses.

     

    Another example of how the gene could be passed on; as we all know, there are a lot of priests and religious followers, for example, who will form relationships with the opposite sex, despite being gay due to fear of persecution. In Islamic countries gay muslims are stoned to death, so they might choose to have children to avoid being murdered. In the Catholic church a lot of homosexual religionists may fear persecution, because homosexuality is viewed as a sin in their religion, and will therefore have children with the opposite sex, despite being gay, and pass on the gay gene. Or alternatively carry out their acts of homosexuality by preying on vulnerable children in secret (for example).

     

    So as you see it is very possible for homosexuality to be passed on genetically and if, as you suggested, it is a sin; ironically religious people are responsible for passing on the gay gene.

     

    Obviously it's not going to take a week, but if I really wanted to be gay, then I could become gay. It may take a while, but I, and anyone else that really wanted to, could do it. And that goes vise versa as well; if a gay person really thought that they shouldn't be gay, they could, and it may take a while, become not gay.

     

    Well, science doesn't back up these wild theories of yours, nor intuition. So I'm wondering, how is it that you're so confident spouting this nonsense without anything other than your gut instinct, while you're so quick to completely overlook every science driven fact thrown your way?

     

     

     

    If it's not a natural urge, but it's not a choice, then what makes people gay? I could say sin, but all of you would jump down my throat, so you tell me, what drives people to become gay?

     

    It IS a natural urge, it's NOT a choice. It is known that what causes to or atleast contributes towards people turning out gay is a combination of genetics and prenatal hormone exposure.

  9. When I started going to school and saw that girls are attractive, and that's the way my parents taught me to be.

     

    You've contradicted yourself here entirely, you was asked when you decided to be straight; you responded with 'when I went to school and noticed girls are attractive'. That's not a choice, that's an incidental revelation; you've just established that your sexuality was already pre-determined, without even realising.

     

    Also, science doesn't care about your opinion, the matter of fact is, sexuality is not something that comes about by nurture or choice, it's nature. For example some animals are homosexual, are you implying that animals are able to make concious decisions regarding their sexuality? As well as that, are you implying that we as animals are different from every other species that exists?

  10. (they didn't choose to be black, but they chose to be gay. They didn't choose to be Irish, but they chose to be catholic).

     

    Looks like you made an error there Pete. It looks as though you just inferred that sexuality is determined through concious decision, as opposed to genetic and hormonal control. Not to worry mate! But this being a science website I thought I'd point out your mistake and give you the facts.

  11. Why? Because it interferes with your ability to pigeon-hole people into neat little categories?

     

     

    Now now, I'd given you a reason for this, but if you want to disregard that argument and hypothesize wildly, feel free.

     

     

     

    Sorry. Such is life. Not everything is as neat and clean as we'd like it to be.

    Categories are made by humans to help make sense of the world. They are generally nice guidelines but very often the reality doesn't quite fit.

     

    No need to be sorry, I wasn't complaining, I was just putting forward the fact. Such is indeed life.

     

     

     

    nsulting in that you have taken a category and assigned negative attributes to that entire group ("...they all conform to a belief system based on absolutes, as opposed to individually formed rationales...). This is no different than suggesting that the Irish are drunks, the Poles are dumb, and the blacks are lazy.

    (As a side note, had you made generalizations about those groups, you would probably have been warned about a rules violation. Not that I think anyone is being malicious, but I do think it points out that biases against the religious go beyond just your comments.)

     

    I'll explain the difference you seem to have missed there: the Irish, for example. That is a word to describe someone's nationality, where they are from; something not chosen and corresponds to a location where said person resides, a place we all know, like any other place, people reside by one another by chance and not a deliberate congregation based on a belief system etc. You can't, seriously, assign presumptive attributes to these people for those reasons.

     

    A Catholic, on the other hand, is a person who has chosen to identify, with a group (Catholics), based on their shared beliefs and desire to practice with those of a belief very close to their own (yes, obviously there are variations). Beliefs based on a book, which is to be taken literally, in the truest sense of Catholicism and followed by the letter (so is intended). What you call a generalisation I call a prediction, based of an evident trend. Which you'd have to be being deliberately naive not to recognise.

  12. I never said it stemmed from atheism, so my argument is intact.

     

    Well if you wasn't implying it stemmed from atheism; your argument may well be intact, but it contains no relevance as an argument to what I said. On top of that, you should word your argument more carefully in future, because you said, quote:

     

     

     

    I tend to believe that atheists have biases in exactly the same way religious people do.

     

    ...

     

     

     

    Here are your biases coming into play again. That statement is simply not true. First of all, they do not 'all conform to a belief system'. Five minutes of conversation with a couple of Catholics will tell you that. Second, your statement that a person who is religious cannot/does not base their decision on 'individually formed rationales' is not only wrong, but terribly insulting.

    The simple fact that people change their view of religion over time, or have doubts, or disagree on whether or not the bible is the literal word of God, should be proof enough.

     

    Well then they shouldn't call themselves Catholics. This sounds very much like most modern day Western religionists, you simply don't know what you stand for. It's so ambiguous and so selective that it becomes redundant, yet that doesn't change the fact that a religious belief system IS based on absolutes, regardless of the fact most holy books will contradict these absolutes countless numbers of times, which is just one reason why religion fails utterly.

     

    Insulting? How so? According to you, I'm addressing a group that apparently doesn't exist? Unless, of course, you are grouping yourself with them...

     

     

     

    The religious DO NOT put themselves in a group of people who believe based on 'blind and sheer belief, based on nothing other than their gut...opposed to individually formed rationales".

     

    But they DO put themselves into groups, which is the bigger picture I was pointing at. Regardless of whether you believe they do so based on blind faith or not. Again your argument seems rather redundant therefore. And I also pointed out, quote:

     

     

     

    Unlike religionists, who all conform somewhat to a shared belief system, blindly.

     

    For the very reason of avoiding this kind of pointless discussion, which avoids the main point completely.

  13. I tend to believe that atheists have biases in exactly the same way religious people do. That is, they develop a belief system over time, and that belief system colors their view of the world. People cannot help but to be influenced by what they believe.

     

    For example, you believe that atheist beliefs vary greatly from one atheist to the next (I agree). Yet your biases tell you that just because people share religion that their beliefs do not vary greatly from one to the other (couldn't disagree more) and that they conform to that belief system blindly (I have yet to meet two Catholics who agree on all aspects of Catholicism).

     

    You'd do well to stop referring to 'the religious' as some sort of collective group. They vary by particular belief system, as well as by individuals within the belief system. 'Religious' includes many types of people, including those who have no more in common than belief in a deity.

     

    It's not based on biases that stem from atheism though, because atheism isn't a belief system. So, even if you was correct, that my view stems from some sort of bias, it would be separate from my atheism, which defeats your argument.

     

    Of course religionists' beliefs vary from one to the next, but that does not remove the fact that they all conform to a belief system based on absolutes, as opposed to individually formed rationales, regardless of whether they do or not; which was exactly my point.

     

    I may well do well to stop referring to the religious in groups, but seeing as they put themselves into groups, hence religions, I would not be wrong to do so. At least not in the same way Dylan was to group all atheists together, which again, was exactly my point.

  14. It changes the whole argument. An atheist believes in "nothing", but, that "nothing" is really nothing. They have biases just the same as any religious man. In terms of preaching they always have to prove others wrong, even though we as the collective human race don't have any real facts about where existence comes from. Being agnostic I have no biases, I refuse to say there is or isn't a god, you can't counter argue me by attacking my beliefs; but that didn't stop you from trying.

     

    An atheist doesn't belong to a religious belief. That's the problem with defining yourself as an atheist, it's not always one or the other. Quite a few people who called themselves atheist are technically agnostics strongly leaning towards atheism; that is they don't absolutely rule out the possibility of a God, as they wouldn't rule out the possibility of anything. However, that doesn't mean they believe there is a God, because there's no evidence of one to lead them to do so.

     

    That aside, atheists do not have biases in the same way a religious person does, because they are able to look at all religions equally, unlike a religious person. An atheist generally looks at things by evidence and rationale, whereas a religionist will look at it by blind and sheer belief, based on nothing other than their gut; which serves them wrongly.

     

    You'd do well to stop referring to 'atheists' as some sort of collective group, in the same way you would a religious group. That doesn't work. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's merely a word to describe someone who doesn't have a belief in a deity. Their beliefs vary GREATLY from one atheist to the next. Unlike religionists, who all conform somewhat to a shared belief system, blindly.

     

    As for plainly categorising yourself as an agnostic, is equally as foolish as calling yourself a theist; seeing as the rationale for agnosticism can be applied to anything that doesn't have any evidence, basically, 'I can't prove it definitely doesn't exist, therefore I'm not sure'. Which, personally, I don't think can be described as a 'belief', perhaps only very very loosely.

  15. The essence of Christianity and similar religions is narcissism. Of course it's a deplorable view to accept a piece of superstition of such, and dress it up as a martyr for the forgiveness of their wrong doings.

     

    What they seem to claim as selflessness I can only view as cowardice and darn right ridiculous.


    It is not human sacrifice - human sacrifice requires that the person doing the killing attaches religious significance to it and that it is done as an offering to their God; this was not the case.

    It is best to attack the reality of Christianity rather than attack strawmen.

     

    Well technically God sacrificed his own human form to himself, and it very much had a religious significance, in the eyes of God.

     

    God offered himself to God with the human sacrifice of God to allow God to forgive the sins God allowed to happen.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.