Making An Imaginary Periodic Table Answers: Fill & Download for Free

Mathematics:In Coordinate Geometry, do not try to solve equations. Just put the given options in the equation and check what fits. It will save you considerable time.In Integration problems, just differentiate the given options and find out the correct answer.Similarly, in Differentiation problems, integrate the given options and see what fits.In Algebra, most of the questions are property-based. Look at the options carefully to see which one has an anomaly. In 99% cases, option with the anomaly will be the right answer.In Quadratic Equations, 90% questions are based on properties of alpha, beta and gamma where you have to find the sum of roots or the product of roots. Make sure you know the properties well and the rules that need to be kept in mind to solve such questions.Tips TricksIn questions based on Complex Numbers, read the question carefully to find out if the answer would be an imaginary number or a real number. Mostly two options are necessarily real numbers. Eliminate the choices that don’t fit and then, try to check which one should be the correct answer.Physics:The quickest way to solve a Physics question is to read the question carefully and find out what should be the unit of the answer. Check the options with correct units and then, work on them.Most Optics related questions have only one-step solutions. Compare options with the given question and you can easily see which one would be the correct choice.Electricity related questions are property-based. Read them carefully and you will find out that only one or at the most two options satisfy the property in question. It will help you to get to the correct answer quickly.Chemistry:Periodic Table questions are undoubtedly based on properties of various elements. If you know them well, you will surely net those marks.Thermodynamics is a common topic in both Physics and Chemistry. Thermodynamics question asked in one subject is generally based on the same concept as asked in another subject, with just the opposite logic. Same thing is applicable to Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Chemistry as well.45-50% questions in Chemistry are from Organic Chemistry. Hence, you should know all its reactions and our word chart quite well. Compare options with the reactions; only one or two are relevant.Physical Chemistry questions are always numerical, intercepted with questions on Electrochemistry. Knowing this, it will be easier to solve questions from both these topics.**Good luck for your exam**

It can be extremely difficult to explain the simplicity of atheism to a person of faith with a 19th - 20th century American view of religious belief and its place in the world. I lived through two-thirds of the 20th century as an atheist child in a Christian home and an adult atheist in a nation of Christians, so, more than most, I have an appreciation of how things have changed.When I was born, the default position for belief was: GOD IS. The state where I lived was a little theocracy. Stores closed on Sunday. Bars and movie theaters were required by law to be closed on Sunday. In the public schools (government schools) the school day began by law with a recitation of the Lord's Prayer and a scripture reading from the King James Bible. Good Friday was a school holiday. There was a creche in front of City Hall. We sang hymns and religious Christmas carols in school. No one questioned it.Gradually that changed. In a series of landmark cases, the U. S. Supreme Court extended the constitutional freedoms under the Bill of Rights to include statutes and regulations of state and local governments and governmental bodies such as boards of education. Over the past fifty years -- and that is exactly how long separation of church and state has been the constitutional position, 50 years, no longer -- all of those violations of the rights of non-Protestant Christians have fallen. Organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation have been vigilant in rooting out and opposing the constant attempts by some American Christians to circumvent the Constitution and the rulings of the court.In the late 20th century the Internet provided a meetup place for freethinkers, skeptics, doubters, unbelievers, agnostics and atheists.The books of the "New Atheists," tore down the curtain outside the wizard's cabinet and exposed the fallacy of the default: god is. What was new about these atheists is that they unashamedly declared that the notion of god had no special privileges. They dispensed with the traditional pussyfooting around the majority belief -- the lengthy philosophical explanation of why not everything connected with the notion of god could pass muster -- before getting down to the meat and potatoes (long after almost everyone had quit reading) that, well, gee, honestly, I'm pretty sure this god thing is a human invention. They cut to the chase with titles such as God Is Not Great and The God Delusion.In that same period of time, the number of American adults who self-identified as having no religious belief doubled, while the percentage of American adults who self identified as Christian dropped from 86 percent to 73 percent. [1, 2]That is the context into which the OP has dropped the question, "As an atheist, what do atheists bring to the table?"One wants to ask, "What table?" The term is often used in reference to negotiations of some sort, but I am unaware of any negotiations that would apply. For a short time I had a filmmaking partner who was an Episcopal Priest. He tried to make a film called "Table," which referred to the table that serves as an altar to which sacrifices or gifts are brought. (He never finished the film and I eventually dissolved our partnership.)Perhaps the OP means table as a metaphor for discussion, some idea that we should all sit down and have a cup of tea -- or a beer -- and talk things out. From my perspective, that is exactly the service that Quora offers as a marketplace of ideas, including ideas about religion and atheism. As I've indicated in the answers to numerous questions, many believers really know nothing about atheists or atheism other than the mistaken ideas some other believer has told them.[3]Therefore, I'm here to discuss atheism from the point of view of a lifelong atheist with eight decades of experience. So that's something an atheist brings to the table: Actual knowledge of atheists and atheism.The OP says, "A person with a faith in God (regardless of whatever name(s) s/he may use) offers the assurance of something greater than themselves being at work in this world."Actually, there is no assurance, just wishful thinking based on ancient folklore. Each time I ask for some kind of realistic proof that the person of faith knows what she or he is talking about, I get nothing. That's what the person of faith actually brings to the table: Assumptions, not assurance; talk, not evidence.The OP continues, "All of the major religions, when it comes down to it, provide a foundation that encourages this acknowledgement – that we should not live our lives as though the individual is the center of the universe, but rather we should live our lives in a way that recognizes that we are all in this together."Yes, but so what? So do all the major political systems. So do most philosophies. And so do, amazingly, most atheists.It is another conceit of certain religious folks that atheists are selfish hedonists with no concept of morality and a nihilistic outlook on life. When asked for proof of any of that, they again offer nothing more than, "It just seems that way to me ..."Atheists do emphasize personal responsibility as part of the recognition that we are all in this together. What one does and the decisions one makes as an individual matter immensely. So that's something else atheists bring to the table: Personal responsibility.The OP then asks, "What does not believing in God bring to the table, especially in the sense of publicly and actively (ie., writing books, making movies, renting billboards challenging the existence of God) not believing in God?"To place this question in context, the OP stated in a comment thread on one of my answers, "It seems to me that atheist(s) hurt their cause by arguing against the existence of a God, rather then addressing the actual issues that are offensive to them."[4]Both statements indicate an incredible naivete and ignorance about atheists and atheism. Let's take the first -- "publicly and actively not believing in God.""writing books" -- The last time I checked, Amazon listed 250 books on religion for each book on atheism. Is it okay for the religious to write books but not the unreligious?"making movies" -- I grew up on Bible movies made by Hollywood, and it's still continuing. How about TV shows like "Touched by an Angel"? What do you have against a few documentaries about atheism that almost nobody watches, other than they offer some notions that believers find hard to refute?"billboards" -- On the seven-minute drive to take my granddaughters to and from school, I pass a half dozen churches, each with a religious symbol and a sign board with a religious message. I pass nothing related to atheists. In the United States there are more than 300,000 Protestant churches, plus another 20,000 Catholic parishes, each with its own church. And they all have the cross and the sign board. Exactly how many atheist billboards are there? And how do these numbers compare with Christian billboards, in say, the Bible belt?This does seem like special pleading for Christianity. It also seems to translate as the tired old refrain, "Why don't you atheists just keep quiet?"As to the second statement, the OP mistakenly seems to think atheists are "arguing against the existence of a God," when most atheists simply say they have no belief in any god or gods. Atheists in the 21st century know that arguing against the existence of a god is pretty much an exercise in futility, because (1) it is difficult to impossible to argue against the existence of an imaginary entity (which is why atheists tend to mention unicorns in explaining burden of proof), and (2) it isn't necessary. It is enough to say, "I have no belief in any god or gods." That puts the burden of proof on anyone who asserts that some god exists. (Even Richard Dawkins, whom the OP has mentioned disparagingly in several comments, does not go so far as to assert nonexistence.)He also seems to think "the atheist cause," as he calls it, is some sort of a reform movement by atheists to correct "the actual issues that are offensive to them." Wrong. It's an either/or situation. Theists believe in some god; a-theists don't. That is the issue.So, what atheists might bring to the table, if there were a table:Actual knowledge of atheists and atheism.Personal responsibility.The rational concept of burden of proof.A counter to religious bullying.A demand for lawful behavior by believers.Countering myth with reality, superstition with facts, and dogma with reason._______________________________[2] “Nones” on the Rise[3] ARIS 2008 Summary Report[3] Barry Hampe's answer to What have you learned from debating religion on Quora?[4] Starting at: https://www.quora.com/God/Why-do-atheists-say-that-they-will-believe-in-God-only-if-God-shows-himself-Is-God-subject-to-their-orders/answer/Barry-Hampe/comment/3778054

Hey! That's a great song, and kind of obscure. Native speakers can't understand it, either. The expression is not a standard idiom, but evocative poetry.Here is my best guess.The whole song has the song's subject by himself over a 3 day period, in various dream-states or hallucinations. He's in a daze, both inside and outside himself. But alone, working through some issue. Or some drug ingestion.For three strange daysI couldn't put a smile on my faceSo, he's depressed and dazed, maybe over a long weekend, maybe after a traumatic event, like a breakup? Or a drug trip.So they dressed me up in all of their clothesAnd took me somewhere elseI think that "they" are not actual people here, but perhaps the Muses, giving him inspiration, taking him away from his sad place, turning him into someone else ("their clothes"). Or maybe "they" are the imaginary characters conjured up in a drug-induced haze, making him into someone else. At least on the surface.Johnny Clueless was thereWith his simulated wood grainNow I'm stuck. The image evokes Johnnie Walker whisky or a cheaper, low quality substitute ("simulated woodgrain"), or perhaps an imaginary muse-like character in his dream-state who wants him to help him forget ("Johnnie Clueless") in an equally imaginary dive bar or at a cheaply built table ("simulated woodgrain"). The next stanza suggests an alcohol reference, though.So I pulled up a chairAnd started drinking by myself"Drinking by myself" reiterates the fact that he is alone, and that "they" and "Johnnie Clueless" are really not people. but some kind of metaphor.The video is fun but adds no insight to the answer. I'll include it anyway.I found an alternate interpretation at Johnny Clueless was there, with his Simulated Wood-Grain which I find even more obtuse than the lyrics themselves.