CarbonCopy

An equation for Brahman? Our ancients who discovered these truths neither knew about quantum physics or about any equations so will you stop linking these concepts with modern science, it has nothing to do with either quantum physics or modern science.

So you are saying that Quantum Mechanics is wrong ? Then why are you validating stuff that you are saying with Quantum Mechanics ? You are just proving my point which I stated above, i.e., modern science is taking us closer to concepts such as brahman and tao, and good example is quantum entanglement, as you stated above

 

No, the concept of Brahman cannot exist without the concept of Vedic gods. The only thing that the Upanishads and Taoism has to offer science is to show that scientific realism is false.

Do you know nothing of the things taught n the Vedas. It says that the only thing in this world in brahman, advaita basically. There are no such thing as gods such as Indra and Shiva, they were created by seers to tell us morals and stories. The only thing is the supreme brahman or tao and we are that. There is no god overseeing us. That's nonsense.

.

 

 

BTW, Can you tell me what it means to be a Hindu?

 

Being hindu is following the morals such as dharma,artha,karma and mosksha and teachings in the vedas. It is certainly not throwind coconuts and poring milk on some idol and blinding believing that god is it.

 

 

 

Why should I give up when my beliefs are based on facts established from experiments? Atheists aren't any better than those religious type one's who continue to believe in their fairy tales despite what the evidence is saying, right.

You can believe what you want, but, you can make it into fact. Your belief system cannot override facts. If your beliefs and above empirical evidence then, frankly, I will call you bad Scientist.

Hinduism and Taoism do have something to offer in terms of science. The problem is that they come with lots of cultural baggage along with them such as many myths and stories. I'm a hindu, so trust me when I say, that we have more than enough gods and stories based on them. Anyway, concepts like brahman, chi, the tao are interesting concepts.

Problem is we need empirical evidence for this. But, quantum mechanics and string theory I think are getting quite close to these concepts We might even have an equation for brahman soon ! But, until then these concepts belong to philosophy not science.

But, I do think that all scientists should at least read about taoism and stuff like vedanta, it provides a greater philosophical view.

And, I don't get this division of Eastern and Western Science, Science belongs to all of us. The laws of science are same in the east or west.

Oh, and immortal, this is not the way you start a thread. Ask a question and don't just start preaching vedanta without any empirical bases, especially to a scientific community.

It's like you are trying to mock us.

 

Except you aren't being pushed out. It seems that way if you are in an accelerated reference frame, but in an inertial frame, there is no outward force. Objects moving in ellipses/circles need a force directed inward, which in this case is gravity. Planets are falling in to the sun, but they keep missing owing to their tangential motion.

 

Ya basically that's the answer.

The planets do not fall in due to centrifugal force from left over motion from the gas clouds that created all the of them. This counter acts i the gravitational force and slows down the rate of fall. Its like when you go in a merry-go round you are being pushed outwards, same thing.

So its not only electrons that exhibit quantum effects.

Do nanomaterials exhibit quantum effects ? At what distance do we start considering quantum effects, do normal atoms and molecules exhibit quantum effects.

Ahhh, finally, the interface looks modern. Nice work with the speech editor.

In my own view teaching science must be hands on, not just lectures and by words it'll be better to test it (at least the possible experiments).

 

That is my view too. Science teaching today is too dry. If feel that when we teach science, we should tell our students about the scientific method and the wonders of discovery.

 

Also, in India, the main focus is not on the subject but on passing the exam. The exams create an environment where students are forced to by heart big paragraphs in their science text books. Rote learning here is very prevalent. That's why most of the students hardly know any science. It's quite a waste of time and human resource. Most of these kids do really well in school but when they land up with jobs, their lost because the knowledge that they learned is of no use to them. I know so many people who struggle in their lives because they know nothing but rote learning. Rote learning of science is a great threat to science knowledge here.

 

The science classes in china were too focused on equations

India shares that problem with China. Here too students are too focused on solving problems using equations, and they never get to understand their true beauty. Students are forced to learn up huge derivation word by word of these equations.

You can use the fact that the alpha hydrogen of actylene is acidic. So, add a base such as NaOH to it to abstract the hydrogen and form a carbanion.

 

For the first product, add 2-methlychlorobutane. The actylene carbanion will act like a nucleophile and substitute the chlorine in 2-methlychlorobutane. You now have 3-methylpentyne. Now, the hydrogen on the other side of the triple bond is also acidic, so, you can form a carbanion from that too. Now react that with a chloromethane and you will obtain your product.

 

Repeat to form second product The only change is to use 3-methlychlorobutane instead of 2-methlychlorobutane.

If no2 substitutes in the ortho or para position, then the positive charge of the intermediate will resonate and a positive charge will be present on the other no2 of nitrobenzene. Since no2 is electron withdrawing, it withdraws from the positive charge making it even less stable. But, if no2 substitutes in the meta position, then no charge will be present on the other no2, in the resonance of intermediate. So, it does not destabilised positive charge. So, you should show resonance in the meta position where the charge does not resonate to the no2 group of nitrobenzene.

1352208703[/url]' post='711875']

I agree with you. At present it is impossible to do maths with the idea of god. Maths is a invention of man's mind. There is no reason not to be hopeful that sometimes in future man will invent a new kind of maths which will enable him to do maths with the idea of god. Till then the idea of god will merely be a hypothesis with no maths & no predictions. If god is an entity with existence he will be found in future empirically with the help of THIS NEW YET TO BE INVENTED MATHS (re. this god) , YET TO BE MADE PREDICTIONS (re. this god) & YET TO BE PERFORMED SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS (re. this god) to the satisfaction of all & then he will be available to all just like sun or moon or computer or television. Till then he will merely be an speculation for many of us. Your thoughts?

 

I think your right. These ideas can't be proven for now.

But that's based on a premise that nature behaves in a certain way. A premise that hasn't been shown to be true.

 

so your saying nature does not follow certain rules ?

I thought Science is based on that very premise.

Ur welcome! If you need any more help just ask.

well its largely right. you just need to account for the steriochem for the reaction also. The alcholic grp with no deuterium attacks the other alch grp by sn2 and make that carbon inverted in config. hence h and deuterium get inverted. now 2 pdts will be formed depending on whether the alcohol moves forward ( and pushes the ch3 grp back ) or whether the alcohol moves back ( and pushes the ch3 grp forward ) and this accounts for the steriochem of the the 2 ch3 groups of the 2 pdts.

although carboxylic acid has the ability to form hydrogen bonding, however carboxylic anion will exist as an ionic salt, and ionic salts are highly stable due to partial charge on oxygen and hydrogen of water.

Assuming you want to carry nucleophillic acyl substitution of the carbonyl group of phenyl alanine use an acid. I think indole will attack the acyl position frrom the position 2.

The molecue should follow huckel rule that is the should be 4N+2 pi electrons. i.e., count the number of double bonds and equate that number to 4N+2, where N is some integer. If we get a N as 1,2,3... then it is aromatic else not.

Also, there should be double bonds,or a charge in conjugation ( alternating )

a) is anti-aromatic because it has 4 pi electrons, if we take 4N+2 = 4 we don't get N a 1,2,3... but we get it as 0.5 instead.

b)is aromatic because there are 6 pi electrons and there are alternanting double bonds and a +ve charge.

c) is aromatic. it may seem as though it has 4 pi electrons, but remember oxygen has a lone pair so it becomes 6.

d)is not aromatic. nitrogen has lone pair of electrons, that makes the number of electrons 6 but, these are not alternating as the nitrogen lone pair is just next to a double bond

e)aromatic same as b)

f)aromatic. 4 pi elect + 2 on nitrigen.

g) is not aromatic. it may appear as though it has 6 electrons but it has 8 due to negative charge.

h) is not aromatic. has only 4 elec.

i)is aromatic. has 6 electrons, and present in conjugation.

j)is not aromatic

k) is aromatic because 6 electrons

l) Is aromatic. 4 electrons and 2 in sulphur as lone pairs

 

between the pictures of j) and k) there is a negative charge. because the picture is small I can't make out if that charge belongs to j) or k). I assumed it belongs to k) and gave the answer. correct me if that is wrong.

_{mass energy conservation, Einstein's equation e=mc2.}

Doesn't this point to some kind of disconnect between Maths and Nature?

so Math does not really describe nature to the fullest ?

1351363811[/url]' post='710707']

A good question. It strikes at the heart of Mathematics as applied to Nature.

 

Let's consider: When we look at Nature, we find that all natural objects are made of round things. Thus the Earth is round, and it orbits round the Sun, which is also round.

And the Earth and Sun are supposed to be made of smaller particles, like protons, electrons and neutrons - which are also round.

 

"Roundness" seems a basic property of Nature.

 

However - what happens when we try to investigate this Natural "roundness" by applying our Mathematics to it. Even if we use the simplest example of "roundness" - a perfect circle - we find notoriously, that Maths cannot provide an exact solution to such a basic question as - what's the ratio between the circle's radius and its circumference.

 

All the Maths comes up with, is the dispiriting and fundamentally unsatisfactory series : 3.14159265358979323...... and so on to infinity.

 

Doesn't this point to some kind of disconnect between Maths and Nature?

So your saying that to describe all this we need to describe a circle. But we cannot get a solution for even this.

 

 

 

I would like to know the best book to learn advanced Organic Chem for the graduate level ( or post graduate, same thing ). I'm using March's OChem book. It seems good, but does it cover all the topics necessary ? Any suggestions.

How do we know that an atom is at a lower energy ? And how do we know a nucleus is heavy ?

1351278305[/url]' post='710562']

Your signature tells me you are an organic chemist. The following post assumes an organic chemist level of knowledge.

 

I'm not an organic chemist, I'm a student studying ocher and it's awesome. But, I do understand what you are saying. Anyway, how can your research improve our daily lives.

What about for eg, when we put r=0 in newton's law of gravity we get infinity. how do we rationalize that. and what about singularities,

What is the next generation launch vehicles for NASA after the shuttle program