where do smells go?

[Smith]

I didnt read the above post, but I think it has something to do with the life of the chemicals in skunk spray. After a certain time the chemicals degrate and turn back into the natural elements.

[Seedler]

Smith chnage your avatar, it's starting to smell.

[limesqueezer]

Well you probably ain't serious.
The question should be more like why should a bad smell be any different than a good one. Flys love stinky smell, for them it is a good smell, they get high with it, similar like dogs. Big cities all have terrible smell but you don't even notice it, cause you live in shit, similar like fly, good becomes bad. The smell goes inside of you and becomes part of you. HAHA
But like mr. Smith said, its the same with all elements, not even the air you breathe stays the same when you breathe out.

[elitistpig]

The only way to "break down" a molecule is to photolyze it with high-energy photons or bombard it with neutrons etc.

Doesn't the etc negate the only in that sentence.

What do enzymes do then?

Enzymes are proteins. They catalyze reactions by lowering their activation energy (most of these reactions would only occur at higher temperatures and/or pressures without having a catalyst--of course then we get into the differences between thermodynamics and kinetics). As far as the "only"/"etc," I was making the foolish assumption that people would understand that "photolyzing with high-energy electrons or bombarding with neutrons" means that we are putting a lot of energy into a closed system--meaning that any way of greatly increasing the energy (e.g. heating/increasing pressure) would break the molecule down. I didn't want to have to type this much

As for "forum chemist," j24k, I'm honored, although it may take away time from my other project, the non-existent *cough* Iranian nuclear weapons program *cough*.

[Gripper]

I think smells congregate in boy's rooms aged between 10 -16 years old.

[CrabGirl]

As far as the "only"/"etc," I was making the foolish assumption that people would understand that "photolyzing with high-energy electrons or bombarding with neutrons" means that we are putting a lot of energy into a closed system--meaning that any way of greatly increasing the energy (e.g. heating/increasing pressure) would break the molecule down. I didn't want to have to type this much.

So sorry for wasting your energy and finger skin.

Do you think it is fair to assume that your readers would understand what you meant when you used scientific terminology without further explanation?

[manker]

As far as the "only"/"etc," I was making the foolish assumption that people would understand that "photolyzing with high-energy electrons or bombarding with neutrons" means that we are putting a lot of energy into a closed system--meaning that any way of greatly increasing the energy (e.g. heating/increasing pressure) would break the molecule down. I didn't want to have to type this much.

So sorry for wasting your energy and finger skin.

Do you think it is fair to assume that your readers would understand what you meant when you used scientific terminology without further explanation?

Yeah it's fair, fuck 'em.

To draw a parallel, I use irony when addressing Americans on a fairly frequent basis.

[CrabGirl]

So sorry for wasting your energy and finger skin.

Do you think it is fair to assume that your readers would understand what you meant when you used scientific terminology without further explanation?

Yeah it's fair, fuck 'em.

To draw a parallel, I use irony when addressing Americans on a fairly frequent basis.

I don't think it is fair that Scientists at times treat science a bit like an-in joke, speaking in code and excluding the lay-person, often looking down on them for their lack of understanding. If they were a bit more thoughtful, or less snobbish, and explained things in a more accessible way, it would make science more interesting and acceptible to the populus.
This also occurs between different factions of science, biologists versus chemists for example. As for psychologists....

[manker]

Yeah it's fair, fuck 'em.

To draw a parallel, I use irony when addressing Americans on a fairly frequent basis.

I don't think it is fair that Scientists at times treat science a bit like an-in joke, speaking in code and excluding the lay-person, often looking down on them for their lack of understanding. If they were a bit more thoughtful, or less snobbish, and explained things in a more accessible way, it would make science more interesting and acceptible to the populus.
This also occurs between different factions of science, biologists versus chemists for example. As for psychologists....

I see your point but to agree with it would be hypocritical.

In-jokes are the building blocks on which forums and societies are based. I like them, even if I'm not in on them (the latter may be a lie). Making science more amenable to people surely has its place but I don't think that place is here.

Ken.

[CrabGirl]

I don't think it is fair that Scientists at times treat science a bit like an-in joke, speaking in code and excluding the lay-person, often looking down on them for their lack of understanding. If they were a bit more thoughtful, or less snobbish, and explained things in a more accessible way, it would make science more interesting and acceptible to the populus.
This also occurs between different factions of science, biologists versus chemists for example. As for psychologists....

I see your point but to agree with it would be hypocritical.

In-jokes are the building blocks on which forums and societies are based. I like them, even if I'm not in on them (the latter may be a lie). Making science more amenable to people surely has its place but I don't think that place is here.

Ken.

Yes it does when the terminology being used to make a point prevents understanding.


Barbie.