This would violate the law of conservation of matter/mass, which states that in a closed system, mass is constant. This means that matter can neither be created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction. In other words, the mass of the products equals the mass of the reactants.
No; hyperbolic is a term of geometry or cosmology to describe something as having a relationship with a parabola (an infinite three-dimensional curved shape), or in debate to refer to a hyperbole claim or statement which is an overstatement or plausible exaggeration. There is no known application to chemical reactions.
They shouldn't.
Because Saturn's extra energy comes from Helium falling out of the atmosphere and shrinking to the core.
Probably not. It is currently unknown exactly what dark matter is, but theories claim that it may comprise up to 90 percent of the mass in the universe. We can't even find life on the masses we can identify.
Many scientists dismissed the theory because it flew in the face of conventional wisdom.
The description of something as evil, or not, is governed by the values of the one who is considering the problem. Suffering is as natural as living and can claim no religious adherents, just as a chemical reaction has no regard for the heat or cold it generates, as long as its chemical reaction is completed. As with evolution it has no way of evaluating whether it is good or bad. Every act that is seen as evil by someone, offers a benefit for someone else no matter how shallow we may regard that gain.
We humans are not extinct. Yet.
Yes, French chemical names can be translated into English chemical names. The periodic tables exists in many languages. Scientists from non-English-speaking countries have claim to many important contributions toward making the periodic table as accurate and pertinent as it is today.
No; hyperbolic is a term of geometry or cosmology to describe something as having a relationship with a parabola (an infinite three-dimensional curved shape), or in debate to refer to a hyperbole claim or statement which is an overstatement or plausible exaggeration. There is no known application to chemical reactions.
It is safer to claim it as neither - not least because the reaction would/does not work. Far safer to say that the sulphur is oxidised (which, you could argue, makes it a reducing agent).
They shouldn't.
No nobody has ever seen an atom or atoms, though many people/scientists claim they have, NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN AN ATOM!
H
H
H
yes, no matter what your nationality is.
Most scientists believe the Loch Ness monster is a myth.