Introduction to Transition Metal Catalysis

preview_player
Показать описание
After learning about the different kinds of organometallic reactions, we are ready to learn about transition metal catalysis. This is an incredible field that has pushed organic synthesis forward in leaps and bounds over the past 50 years. How can transition metal catalysts be used to achieve desired chemical transformations, and what are the industrial applications? The rest of this series will be focused on this very large topic, so let's get an introduction now!

Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

The level of this is shockingly good. Far, far into undergraduate study that people pay thousands for. Thanks Dave.

edwardhayes
Автор

FINALLY!!! The master have done it and started/continued with the most exciting series 👏 ❤

waelfadlallah
Автор

Dave, heard you're debating WItsit. Watch Globebusters Ep. 11.9 from 18:00 - 28:00, where they discuss Witsit's strategy against you. Witsit will be trying to call you out on some points you mentioned against David Weiss. I wanted to alert you to Witsit's major talking points:

(1) Earth doesn't move. It doesn't rotate and orbit the sun.
Foucault's Pendulum & optical gyros detect the aether's vortexing motion, not earth's spin. He'll mention papers showing the spin rate decreases with altitude, which shouldn't occur if it was the earth that is spinning. One such example is David Miller's papers. These are BS papers and lack statistical analysis, so the variance he detected is statistically insignificant. Statistics weren't carried out on papers of old, unlike today.

Another effective rebuttal is to ask him how the precession of Foucault's pendulum changes with latitude if it was the aether vortex that it detects. Witsit will then likely claim centrifugal forces generated by the universe's motion around us creates that pattern (called Mach's principle). But no such motion around us has ever been detected; there's no angular momentum to the universe. What we see is the universe expanding in all directions. The Gravity Probe B experiment disproves Mach's principle.

Regarding orbit, Witsit will claim Newton requires earth to change direction as it circles around the sun, which needs a force (gravity, the centripetal force), but Einstein says gravity isn't a force and earth moves in a geodesic - a straightline path thru curved spacetime. He'll also say the Michelson-Morley expt. showed earth doesn't orbit the sun, which is patently false. They were using the orbit to test for the aether. Also, he may bring up the Sagnac expt., Michelson-Gale and Airy's failure misunderstanding & misrepresenting each one of them.

Witsit will ask for exclusive evidence that earth orbits the sun. The answers are stellar aberration (James Bradley, 1727), stellar parallax (Friedrich Bessel, 1838), Romer's observation of Jupiter's moon Io, annual Doppler shift of stars (blue & red shifts) due to earth's orbit, Kepler's 3rd law etc. The 3rd law can be derived from Newtonian gravitational law, thereby providing a dynamic mechanism for earth's orbit. Witsit's alternative - geocentrism - lacks such a dynamic mechanism. It can only claim kinematic equivalence. His main rebuttal will be that aberration, parallax & Doppler shifts show it's the stars that are moving, not earth. But that's just a vague handwave dismissal. There are lots of nuances. For instance, aberration is the same for all stars and independent of their distance from earth, whereas parallax decreases with distance of the star. Aberration is 90 degrees out of phase with parallax because it depends on earth's velocity, while parallax depends on earth's position in its orbit. Aberration causes stars to trace circles at the ecliptic poles, straight lines at the ecliptic plane and ellipses everywhere in between. Such detailed nuances cannot be accounted for by geocentrism. Also, geocentrists try to explain parallax by claiming the stars orbit the sun while the sun goes around the earth. If this is the case, that can't even be called parallax and it will be a daily occurrence, not an annual event.

Witsit will also wrongly claim that earth's orbit cannot be measured. It has been measured with stellar aberration. The speed of earth's movement - 30 km/s is directly obtained from aberration given the contant speed of light. Moreover, in recent decades, acceleration of the solar system and even that of the Milky Way have been measured with VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry). VLBI has also been used to measure Earth's wobbles. Witsit is still stuck with 19th century interferometry, and is not aware of VLBI. A new version of aberration using distant quasars instead of stars, can be used to detect the solar system's motion. There are papers available describing these. Please check them out.

(2) VHF radio over 30 MHz can be transmitted thousands of km showing the earth is flat. But this is explained by Sporadic E propagation, which Witsit ignores.

(3) Planar surveying shows earth is flat. But he ignores that planar surveying has a distance limit to it, beyond which only geodetic surveying is employed. If the earth was actually flat, such a limit to planar surveying wouldn't be there.

(4) Models of the earth's interior are wrong because the data obtained from the deepest hole dug in Russia at 12 km depth were in disagreement with geologists' predictions.

(5) Southern flights travel longer distances than on the globe by taking advantage of jet streams. Ask him how jet streams switch directions for return flights. And why do jet streams travel along the outer perimeter of the AE map? Makes no sense on FE. In reality, these winds are produced by the rotation of the earth from west to east.

(6) Antarctica can't be freely and privately explored due to the treaty. But that's the same for any hazardous place like Mt. Everest. Several tour operators carry a growing number of tourists not just to Antarctica but all the way to the South Pole every season. Note that flat earthers haven't so far taken up Will Duffy's offer to fly them to Antarctica, all expenses paid, and witness the 24h sun.

vimalramachandran
Автор

You are great and an expert!! Thank you for your explanation. Please send a study tips to different science like chemistry, biology and physics.

uzkqbjj
Автор

You shine, especially, in advanced chemistry. Thanks so much 🙏

johnfox
Автор

Can you debate Jay Dyer on evolution, origin of life, scientism and philosophy? I've watched your debates with the flat earth community and your debunks of Discovery institute and other Christians like Kent Hovind. Cheers from NJ

daniiltanasiychuk
Автор

Brilliant. Thanks Prof Dave (Dai in Wales).

apedanticpeasant
Автор

So riddle me this, Professor Dave - You present this subject very similarly to the univesity persentation. Yet you are so much more understandable. I love to watch these videos and learn. Yet, back in Uni, it was a horrible mess that I wanted to be over with. What is your secret as a science communicator?

Mebe you'd want to make a video describing the way to entice people to learn - because that's what you do. And note that I am aware that you aren't proficient in most of the subjects you present - and that others make your scientific background on topics you are not an adept of. But still - even considering that, you convey the knowledge naturally, as in it is natural to understand it. "How could you not understand it" is the feeling.

Dinnye
Автор

Friends, what password is it, I want to watch previous vids?

vqlk
Автор

Can you debunk @InspiringPhilosophy 's 2016 seven-part series called "The Resurrection of Jesus?"

Acerthorn
Автор

I booked a place for you in heaven. Man you are saving lives here 😭😭😭

Shoongie_s_husband
Автор

You forgot to include bisexual carbon Dave.

gumslinger
Автор

I'll be back to see how many likes my comment has gotten😁

TolulopeFaseyitan-vscu
Автор

Hello sir namaste iam present your chanal ❤❤❤❤❤❤

khushisansar