Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Toadie

  • Birthday July 3

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
  • College Major/Degree
    Chemical Engineering (in process)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Organic chemistry
  • Occupation
    All around cool guy


  • Quark

Toadie's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. Hi all, I'm a relative noob to physics, but yesterday a question came to mind: If degenerate matter has maximum density, what would happen if you were to, say, whack it with a baseball bat? If F=ma and you apply a force to the degenerate matter, then it must produce some acceleration by the degenerate matter. My understanding would tell me that the entire mass would not accelerate uniformly, but it would deform to a degree; the matter closest to the impact would accelerate first, and after some period of time, however small, the rest of the mass would accelerate. Obviously if this were the case, the problem would be that the degenerate matter is already at maximum density, but the deformity from the external force would change some local density to exceed the maximum. So what would happen? Would the who mass indeed accelerate uniformly, or would something else happen? I understand that this situation is quite outlandish but my curiosity has got the better of me. Any input is greatly appreciated.
  2. I figured - Just wanted to illustrate my point. Thanks, in any case!
  3. Hi all- I was reading about psilocybin in the Erowid vaults, and it says: "The ED50:LD50 ratio is 641 according to the NIOSH Registry of Toxic Effects; compare this with 9637 for vitamin A, 4816 for LSD, 199 for aspirin and 21 for nicotine" Am I missing something or is that ratio backwards? Wouldn't that mean a user would have to kill themselves 641 times over to facilitate any psilocybin-induced effects? The way it's written, the effective dose is 641 times greater than the lethal dose, right? Am I missing something or should the ratio be LD50:ED50? Thanks
  4. I realize that this is supposed to be a really easy concept, but I have a hard time understanding it. Could someone please try to explain to me what a state function is, without saying "a quantity that depends only on the current equilibrium state of the system" or something essentially similar? Particularly I would much appreciate it if someone could show me some examples of how things like heat and work do depend on the way the system acquired the state? Thanks a bunch
  5. I know when thinking about radioactive decay, unstable isotopes are what come to mind. But out of curiosity (and I really have no education on the matter, if you couldn't tell), would any given matter decay into pure radiation in theory, if given an extremely vast period of time?
  6. Oops, sorry about that :/ I would remove the bit with the answer in it, but it's been preserved by your quote.
  7. That is not a correct assumption. The number of protons in an element always stays the same. If you change the number of protons, you change what element you're working with (as in a nuclear reaction). Protons dictate element, electrons dictate ionization, and neutrons dictate isotope (they are, for the purpose of this thread, just added weight with no charge). The numbers (20-22) are protons plus neutrons, where the number of neutrons is what's changing. To find the average mass: .909(20) + .003(21) + .088(22) = 18.18 + .063 + 1.936 So your answer is 20.179 amu or g/mol (assuming you don't have to worry about significant figures).
  8. Thanks Hermann, that'll probably come in handy on my final tomorrow.
  9. The question I'm working on reads: I assumed that the Kp would not change, because the mole ratio was not changed. But the back of the book tells me otherwise. The answer is supposed to be Kp = 3.42. Can someone please explain how to get that answer?
  10. Hi all- Sorry for asking such an elementary question... I feel like I'm getting progressively worse at chemistry as I go through the AP course. Anyway, I'm studying for the midterm (which is tomorrow), and I'm reading over some stuff about Le Ch√Ętelier's principle, specifically the effect of temperature changes. I understand it all and don't really have a problem, per se, just a bit of a curiosity. The book explains the effect of temperature changes very well in terms of endo- and exothermic reactions: "In an endothermic reaction, we can consider heat as a reactant, whereas in an exothermic reaction we can consider heat as a product." So my question is: Is the reverse reaction always the opposite? I.e., if the forward reaction is exothermic, is the reverse reaction always endothermic? Are there any cases where both the forward and reverse reactions are exothermic or both endothermic? Thanks
  11. Mr Skeptic brings up a good point. Essentially this whole topic is based on one's definition of a terrorist.
  12. This is a ridiculous question. A good anti-terror group stops terrorists from killing innocent people. A good terrorist kills innocent people. I think the ethics are pretty cut and dry here, in most cases... Also, could you PLEASE invest in a grammar handbook/dictionary, or something? It's becoming increasingly difficult to read your posts o.O
  13. I think the fact that no two people believe in the exact same "right and wrong" would lead me to believe that morality is subjective.
  14. I don't know about the ruler, but the time thing is a pretty standard concept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but time is relative to your position in relation to Earth, in our case. This is applied to everyday things like GPS. They have to recalibrate the clocks on Earth and on the satellite to match up because they go at different rates. Length is a bit different... When you think about it, "centimeters" and whatnot are just man-made preconceptions. A centimeter will always be the same, because it is not actually natural. That said, the ruler itself, when treated as nothing more than a bunch of atoms, is definitely not absolute as far as size goes. That changes with temperature and pressure. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like your theory is pretty standard. EDIT: iNow summed it up much better than I can haha.
  15. I've recently done a bit of reading on the topic, and it appears that it is not hereditary, although you can be slightly genetically predisposed to it. I think the most important thing is to make sure that the child receives the emotional support that they need from their parents, and stay away from anything that could trigger the onset of such diseases. From what I've read, the reason things like this run in families sometimes is because if you have, for example, a bipolar person who has a child, the parent's depression will translate to a lack of emotional support for the child, which could lead to mental problems for the child. I'm also not a professional, so definitely wait for someone else to confirm/reject my statement
  • 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.