An am extremely jealous of those that do.
Moles and Avocados are best left to the Mexicans
Printable View
An am extremely jealous of those that do.
Moles and Avocados are best left to the Mexicans
If you can cook you can understand chemistry.
Food is edible chemistry.
If you want to start easy go with yeast: learn to home brew beer and make you own bread.
Chemistry is the Science of Things That Go Bang.
Finding out how to make things go bang is what defines us as males. Thus, SFTS can no longer be counted as a male. A metro at best.
Pretty simple no, neutrons are mass, and protons and and electrons bind together
Well, that is clearly wrong. Protons and electrons hate each other. The nucleus is the culmination of neutrons and protons, the main source of mass. Electrons just like to fly around the nucleus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Neither of these are really enlightening towards understanding the fundamental beauty of chemistry that is essential to properly understanding what it is about. Another "enlightening" definition I have come across is that chemistry is really the study of the electron.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Chemistry is the study of matter but bounded to only the dimensional scales that us humans can actually manipulate, which at this point is down to the individual atom (to go any further down is probing the nucleus which begins to enter the realm of particle physics). Everything that constitutes Chemistry is essentially the numerous relations and principles repeatedly observed through empirical experimentation over the last 400 years.
Just for anybody curious visiting this thread, there are really good starter Chemistry videos at both Khanacademy.org as well as the CrashCourse Chemistry series which is currently ongoing.
Bee vomit and yeast poop makes booze; all ye need to know :laugh4:
Protons have no massQuote:
Originally Posted by spankythehippo
Protons have a mass very similar to Neutrons.
Photons are mass less (that is why they travel at light speed).
nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Neutrons are slightly heavier then protons. But not hugely so, together they are classed as nucleons.
If neutrons are free ie they are not bound to a proton they will decay. The neutron will split into a proton, an electon an an antineutrino.
Now to really mess with your mind it is possible to use that information to figure out the ratio of neutrons to protons in the universe.
Okay....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Could you please call Hawking and tell him you have groundbreaking new information for him?
I tried but he doesn't pick up the phone for some reason. But protons have no mass. They sit in the core of an atom and keep electrons in check with magnitism, plus and minus, atoms can be stable or unstable depending on the amount and the number of spheres of electrons. That is basic chemistry, atoms can merge and form moleculesQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That is indeed both basic and correct, but protons still do have mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Protons have mass - electrons and photons have negligible mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Let me put it this way. If protons have no mass, the sun started out pretty much mass less and is slowly creating more mass. That would in turn make us slowly falling into the sun (not counting that a mass less sun wouldn't be able to keep any planets in the first place). I think Pape is correct and you mixed up photons and protons on the mass matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Photons has no mass, although they still do have momentum. With the Higgs particle confirmed, it means that photons doesn't interact with the Higgs particle, afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Correct that the electron mass is negligable compared to a proton.
Photons are the protestants of the world of chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Protons were discovered by Ernest Rutherford - a home schooled New Zealander.
They have a mass of 1.6726 x 10^-27 kg each.
Neutrons 1.6749 x 10^-27 each.
So neutron is heavier but not by much.
Electrons are a mere 9.109 x 10^-31 kg
Electrons are to Protons what grams are to kg (~ three orders of magnitude)
Sure they but they need a negativeQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Oops, I'll leave this here so you can have a laugh at me and mock my very existance
Not laughing at you. Just sad that school missed teaching you science.
Chemistry is about how atoms and molecules interact; psychology for molecules. It is a crossroads between biology and geology and it uses physics to describe the models of the atom and molecules.
Chemistry defines elements by the number of protons they have:
1 proton = hydrogen
2 protons = helium
3 protons = lithium
4 protons = beryllium
5 protons = boron
6 protons = carbon
7 protons = nitrogen
8 protons = oxygen
That's the first eight and most important to us as a large chunk of biology uses carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen.
Oil is essentially different combinations of Carbon and Hydrogen. Whilst alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistryQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
My favorite thing to do every time I get lost in my head. Watch Khan Academy and go to Mass.
All you mention are molecules, atoms have only tree building stones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yes, but depending on how many of those they have you get different atoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
IIRC their numbers are usually equal, so oxygen would have 8 protons, 8 neutrons and 8 electrons, though I'm not sure about the neutrons, IIRC sometimes they are not equal to the protons. If there are less electrons than neutrons you have an ion, it has an overall positive load. Ionisation is basically when an electron is kicked out of an atom by something from outside. I forgot what it's called when there are more electrons, could be isotope but IIRC isotope was some other deviation where it's the same element but has more neutrons or protons or something.
I know it's important and interesting but somehow I'm not that fond of chemistry... :sweatdrop:
The number of protons determine the element. Protons are electrically positive.
If there are more or less electrons then protons it is an ion. Typically it is less when the atom is heated and it 'sweats off' an electron. Electrons are electrically negative.
Neutrons are electricall neutral. An element can have multiple isotopes for instance Carbon 12 and Carbon 14.
The element Carbon has 6 protons. Carbon-12 is 6 protons and 6 neutrons. Carbon-14 is 6 protons and 8 neutrons.
I'll run the basics for you. You know some of it, but have other things mixed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's 3 types of building stones for normal matter. Protons, neutrons and electrons.
Protons are positivly charged and determines the element, like Pape pointed out.
Neutrons are neutrally charged and keeps the protons together in the atom core. Their number also decides the isotope, which have slighty different properties. The biggest influence has to do with stability, which causes that some isotopes are radioactive. For example C14 (Carbon-14) is radioactive, while C12 and C13 are stable.
Electrons are negativly charged and are balancing protons, so they are the same number in atomic form. Electrons moves very easily though, creating ions, atoms and molecules that are having a charge.
Molecules are when 2 or more (up to many, many more) of atoms are bound together to make a specific unit. Those molecules does in turn interact with eachother, forming everything we see, since all molecules by themselves are very, very small.
Thanks, I knew about the electrical stuff but wasn't sure about the isotopes, makes sense though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
What I was thinking about regarding the ions were probably anions and cations. I just remembered there were different names depending on whether they're positive or negative.
Chemistry is that special magic that allows boys and girls to get together, and after they get along well enough, they can make more boys and girls. When that special magic fails, some people resort to
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Chemistry, only useful for making Crystal Meth.
Attachment 9888
That much I know, i made a mistake when I said protons have no mass, a pretty stupid one as neutrons would have no other way to keep a hold of them. Cancelled out I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Not stupid at all. Most science is really poorly taught at school. Meaning most kids don't have a chance of understanding it.
Doesn't help that we pay science teachers so poorly that they have plenty of other higher paying options.
I was lucky and had some of the better ones as teachers. One of the next generation student teachers we had to teach the periodic table to them in chemistry class. The new set had plenty of biology science teachers but not enough chemistry teachers.
Can't expect students to learn what their teachers don't know.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The world has progressed from the time when transferring knowledge was what the school should be doing. Learning is an active process, not a passive one. That means that what knowledge your teacher has on the subject is not important at all.
what?
nothing has changed at all, the majority of the people still follow authority and believe whatever that authoritive figure recites from his big book.
whether it is a priest and his bible, or a scientist and his thesis, or the hipster with his edgy columns...
99% of the people who now claim that einstein and darwin have the truth of it would have burned witches at a the stake 500 years ago.
How is this even remotely relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Oh, I took as a student an active role in learning. I was reading encyclopedias at seven. Was a great primary student, and a very good high school student. I programmed my first computer to play craps (old mono coloured, pre 286 era) I did a degree in science not for money or marks or to become a scientist. I did it because it was interesting.
But I'm a geek in personality. I have two fantastic role models for parents. I had access to above average resources. Lived on a farm. All meaning I had a very good start. Something not everyone gets.
Now school to me is for my children to learn social skills. For a lot of kids though it is where they find their only learning role models and the people who can teach them to learn. Teachers need to bridge the gaps and it isn't all self discovery. Yes as an adult there is the Internet, but even as my seven yr old is learning most of google is blocked at school making it hard to create reports, puzzles and crosswords for his assignments.
Some kids need more attention then the baseline. They have learning problems and need someone to advocate for them, to recognise the issues and to do their best to resolve it. Not every parent nor every teacher has that ability. In general school is for the happy average. The bright kids either self teach or get bored and drop performance, the kids with disabilities get categorized, pigeon holed and of lucky attended to.
Even then a lot of teachers read straight out of text books. Poorly comprehend the source materials and poorly communicate the contents at an appropriate level for the students. A kid can do as well reading a source book for themselves and better if they cross reference and analyze.
So I don't expect much from my kids teachers. First provide a safe place, second inspire them to learn for themselves.
"Learning is life, life is learning". One school motto that I actually agree with.
Whow, interesting speech, Papewaio. Much truth in it, too.
I was lucky to have some inspiring teachers. And yes, I belive the most important thing for a teacher is to awaken an interest for the subject and an enthusiasm to learn - especially for Chemistry, which is a pretty abstract subject, considering that most of the things you deal with are way too small to allow you ever to see them.
All my three younger siblings had different learning disabilities. So I have first hand experience of how teachers can make a difference. I've taught English as a Foreign Language. My wife teaches Mandarin. My best friend is head of science for a school. One of my sister in laws is a music teacher the other a primary school teacher.
=][=
As for chemistry, cooking is an accessible way of learning edible chemistry. If someone explains what is happening to the food it is a way into a very fascinating part of science. It is a similar soft path as playing computer games to learn about computers.
Some chefs make a fortune in showing the magic of cooking in a scientific manner.
it is relevant because these people will not learn from someone else than a teacher (who is, or is supposed to be, an authoritive figure), in the broader sense, it doesnt neccesarily need to be a schoolteacherQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
learning has always been an active process, its just that data is more easily available now. However this does not mean it is more comprehensible, it may in fact even be more confusing since there is also alot of contradicting info available. I can look up any advanced chemistry theory, but most likely i would not understand unless i had someone explain it to me in a comprehensible manner. there often just is a limit to what you can do on your own, and i guess i would agree that schoolteachers are not the only source of this learning, but they never have been. in fact i think people nowadays rely more heavily on school/uni/institutionalised teachers then ever before.
Ah, I realize I should take more care when flinging terms around... "Learning as an active/passive process" is not a choice or action done by the student, but rather an observation of how learning takes place. As such it is not something you can choose to do, but instead something professors will fight over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
If you see learning as an active process, you're a constructivist. If you see it as a passive process, you're a behaviourist.
Simply put, the behaviourist teacher will will show examples and ask the students to copy and use them. The constructivist teacher will give a problem for the kids to solve without showing them how to do it. For most of our history, we've been doing the former. Now, however, we're in the process of changing over to a constructivist approach(with some major and notable exceptions). This started with Dewey, and since he's only been around for a century we haven't managed to flush out all the elderly yet.
Anyone playing PC games in the '80s had to figure out how to play a game without a manual, or load the game by using config and batch files.
I think for a lot of people you would start with a bit of training with vicarious experience (book learning) mixed with hands on experience. Once someone has a toolset the next job is to put them into set problem solving scenarios. Ultimately the aim being for them to be independent within a sandbox and let them solve problems they choose.
So I don't see it as a constructionist vs behaviourist. I see it as choosing the right training resource based on the students needs. The problem is some students are self motivated to find information others need to be spoon fed.
And to answer it being on a farm and allowed to run free, climb trees, break sticks, make dams, go fishing my teachers were boredom if I didn't do things and pain if I overdid them. Kids in more free environments get to learn from around them and choose what things they want to pursue and learn more about.
So you're a behaviourist, pape ~;)
I laugh when social scientists try to so hard to make categories to describe the most blurred of gradients.
Oh no, I prefer Miss Behave. She cracks such a fine whip :whip: :smoking:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Psychology is very science based. Pseudo-Psychology however, isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name