<p>CaCl2+H2O ⇌ CaO + 2HCl??? :O</p>
<p>noooo, you can’t undo a neutralization. You’d just have spectator ions. Silly me</p>
<p>No…freezing-point depression.</p>
<p>lol kid doesnt know his T=kmi!!!</p>
<p>what a noob!</p>
<p>^<em>cough</em> I think I need to go review my chem now…</p>
<p>At least I remembered the i factor. Van t’hoff factor, was it?</p>
<p>^^ <em>forgets whether vam’t-Hoff factor will be 2 or 3</em></p>
<p>van t’hoff factor = moles of dissolved ions/moles of salt</p>
<p>NaCl: i=2
MgCl2: i=3
FeCl3: i=4</p>
<p>right haha</p>
<p>You can tell I didn’t know what Ksp was either for that short answer question</p>
<p>Ksp is one of the simpler concepts 
I like that one.</p>
<p><em>dislikes coordination chemistry</em>
<em>likes pretty colors</em>
<em>tries to learn coordination chemistry</em>
<em>fails miserably</em></p>
<p>My thought process:</p>
<p>“**<em>? AgBr should be insoluble”
“I’ll just write that it’s a trick question I guess”
…
“AMHALP there are multiple parts. I guess I didn’t memorize my solubliity chart correctly :/”
“Ksp=Keq, right?”
…
“[Ag+][Br-]/[AgBr]”
*goes to part B</em></p>
<p>[AgBr]=1
</p>
<p>lol yeah. It was all based on my assumption that if I was correct about Silver bromide, [Ag+]=[Br-]=0, so it had to be insoluble :/</p>
<p>Didn’t they give you a Ksp or amount added to saturation?</p>
<p>I think. That was where Ksp=Keq came in handy :b</p>
<p>Threadjacking aside, will anyone respond to my most recent set of posts?</p>
<p>:o What was that about?</p>
<p>
David Eddings?</p>
<p>[noparse]This thread badly need to be hijacked. Well done CPA, leafblade et al.[/noparse]</p>
<p>Honestly I do not appreciate your attempt to drown our discussion with nonsense. If you have nothing to contribute then make like a banana and split.</p>
<p>Thank you, and have a nice day.</p>
<p>^Most of the ‘discussion’ was already nonsense (and offensive too).</p>
<p>“make like a banana and split”
I like that one. Anyone know any more good ones? I read “make like a drum and beat it” someplace recently. I can’t think of any others.</p>
<p>TheAscendancy, there’s been some poor wording on my part. Mirroring the Creator in His entirety is not my point – I’m saying that to have a universal moral law as we do, it must be implemented by a being with the same (if not further) scope of right and wrong. Other aspects of the Creator we can draw from the fundamental reasoning of His existence; however, for this theory to be plausible, it is heavily reliant on today’s science and our own capacity for knowledge and understanding.</p>
<p>You bring up an interesting point about assigning characteristics to the Creator on the basis of our reality. As I said above, it could very well be a typical human attempt to discover reason behind the unreasonable, incomprehensible, or, should you find more fallacies in the argument and depending on your personal beliefs, the impossible and fantastic.</p>
<p>I don’t have a direct answer to your argument because it draws upon the assumption the Creator is entirely too complex for our understanding and space-time is a mere bit of the universe’s fabric. Both are certainly possible and even likely, but as long as the science involved is valid and there is no proof otherwise, I see no reason why not. It’s here that I think personal beliefs (comprehensible vs non) may either support or deny acceptance of the theory.</p>
<p>Threadjackers: If you don’t like the thread and find it offensive, why read it?</p>
<p>First of all, I would like to thank foolfromhell for carrying the discussion. You have provided many marvelous and cogent points. TheAscendancy, as well, has contributed fine, sobering points.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post #312 did not duck the question whatsoever. Morality is fundamentally ingrained on a psychological basis rather than one that is entwined in metaphysical matters. In the contemporary era, of course, law-abiding behavior is predominantly facilitated by a legal code that separates fault from non-fault. But its very roots reside in the mind’s innate capacity for moral thought as derived through the process of natural selection. As has been communicated previously, the notion that religion is required to distinguish between the virtuousness of certain deeds is transparently false and absolutely unsupportable (and, by extension, invalidates the moral requirement for some transcendent pseudoconception). There is scarcely an individual that will untether his most anarchic or amoral tendencies in the absence of religious belief. Indeed, such disqualifies any rationale for a theological morality.</p>
<p>Different types of competition have satisfied separate roles over the course of human evolution. Categorically, violence can be conveniently classified into a contrastive pair – active harm (a form of primitive competition as a means of ultimate destruction) and non-active harm (a form of nondestructive competition). Those who favor the active, destructive form of competition may enjoy a more inclusive fitness, as it eliminates any beings deemed hostile or undesirable. However, savage instincts exercise a tendency to focus on short-term benefits at the expense of the long-term consequences. Naturally, mutual goodwill facilitates survival to a greater extent than a small, insulated group that attempts to promote its own welfare (and may thus not have the proper skills to ensure survival). Hence, active harm would ultimately not be the most prudent strategy for the sake of long-run survival and such a population has a less advantageous potential to propagate genetically. Thus, groups that are disinclined towards imposing active harm benefit from a selectional advantage. </p>
<p>There are certain propensities that humanity has that simply cannot be taught or ingrained by some superficial moral system. Indeed, everyone reading this has a basic awareness of the standards of ethical conduct that is independent from religious doctrine, social conformity, or societal expectations – although any of the three may corrupt that inclination if brought under a potent influence. The same concept applies to the universal need for less primitive animal forms to protect themselves from harm – why all humans (even those not yet born) have an aversion to danger. Its fundamentally instituted through the influence of our evolutionary past. Indeed, iniquitous tendencies are derived from not only mental disorder but also conflicting influences – such as the promise for a beneficial “afterlife” (positive immortality) or because of an irrational belief that a divine being would support such actions. </p>
<p>Moreover, in terms of social liberalization, such as the more beneficial treatment of women, racial minorities, homosexuals, freethinkers, and others (who would have been murdered according to what the “God” character stated within the Old Testament) have been influenced due to collective sociological influences. It has not been derived from religious pursuits. In fact, Christianity’s organized churches of the world have continually opposed and actively hindered such moral progress. </p>
<p>In the scientific realm, religious doctrine and its figurehead adherents often treat such developments as conflicting with the morals present within it despite the potential for the research to support the public welfare, drive technological, economic and social progress, and attain new epistemic frontiers. Ethical standards must be set on a scientific basis (rather than those uneducated on the matter). Such is precisely why irrationally conservative religious doctrine is often the absolute anathema to scientific progress and offers nothing but a polluting impact.</p>