Why are the scientific forms of carbon so ambiguous to common scientific comprehension?
439535
Diamond, Graphite, and Buckministerfullerene are all types of carbon, which means that they are arrangements of carbon atoms with only carbon-carbon bonds. \n\nYou are made of organic compounds with carbon-oxygen, olefin, carbon-hydrogen, oxygen-phosphoros, etc bonds. The carbon that exists within you is the same carbon in diamond or bucky balls; It's just bound in a different way.
928985
Carbon in its hardest form
30562
carbon is tetravalent (ie it is able to form bonds with 4 other atoms. It therefore can form backbones of more complex structures (see diamond and graphite). It is also found abundantly on earth.
1155563
D because\n   when we take the empirical formula of these as\n     %age of Hydrogen devided by its Mr i.e. 25/1=25\n                                                                     \n%age of carbondevided by its Mr i.e. 75/12=6.25\nnow the answers will be devided by the no. which is smaller and as 6.25 is smaller we will use it to devide both the valuesi.e\n                       H :C\n                   25/6.25 : 6.25/6.25\ni.e.               4 :1\nor             1:4\ni.e CH4
598151
A) carbon burning in air\nAll the other choices demonstrate physical changes.
951490
The only commonality that we all have is what we can all see objectively with our own eyes. That objective commonality is Nature. Science is merely a tool for looking at Nature objectively.  The BIG trick is to figure out ways to share objective findings with others who may not have the education to understand the real world as readily as do those who have math and science knowledge.  For example, stem cell research is very frightening and confusing to people who have never even understood elementary chemistry, better yet genetics. People are needed who can communicate with bridges between rational, complex knowledge and simple magical-thinking. Below is an example of a communication "bridge" between subjective belief and objective knowledge.  Please consider becoming a communicator devoted to making these kinds of bridges:  \n\n1. "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light."\n2. All of the light that began the Universe is where everything that we know about so far comes from, including you and I.\n3. That light is pure energy. Energy flies in waves. (The electromagnetic spectrum).\n4. Bundles of that energy called photons come together, cease to fly freely in waves, and form tiny tangled shimmerings called particles. We named those particles "electrons, neutrons and protons". Those shimmerings are also called "matter".\n5. Particle shimmerings come together and form shimmering families called atoms.\n6. Atom families that are alike come together and form elements, such as helium, hydrogen, gold, oxygen, etc.\n7. Elements come together and form compounds.\n8. Compounds come together and form organic compounds.\n9. Organic compounds come together and form lifeforms capable of consciousness and possessing senses.\n10. Humans are made of the original light. Humans are made of zillions of tiny shimmerings that come together and form a giant shimmering that is us.\n11.Photons can be tangled in shimmerings (matter) or flying free in waves (energy). (E=MC2) \n12. When we think and have feelings, our brains emit free flying photons (brainwaves).\n13.Recent scientific reseach in the Netherlands has found that the feeling and associated brainwave that we humans can experience and emit that matches the avearge frequency of the Universe itself, is COMPASSION.\n14. "Equipped with his five senses, man explores the world around him and calls the adventure Science."  Edwin Powell Hubble\n20. Here is a picture that we have recently made of the beginning of the Universe when all the energy of all the shimmerings, including you and I, began:\n\nhttp://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0217/
129303
carbon is found in the ground in the form of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil. when we dig those fuels up and use them the carbon in the fuels reacts with oxygen(it burns!) to produce carbon dioxide, which then enters the atmosphere. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas the more of it in the atmosphere the hotter the planet gets.\nAll this is caused by a very important idea in chemistry called the law of conservation of matter.  matter is never created nor destroyed.  in the case of carbon it is moved from underground where it doesn't do any harm to the planet to the atmosphere where it does.
216215
Photosynthesis converts carbon from inorganic to organic states.  Then respiration converts carbon from organic to inorganic states.
156825
Well, first I probably should know what a somer meteorite is, right? But you wanted answers, not more questions, right? Sorry, again. Okay, but be warned that a renowned physics professor at the University of Texas, a Dr. Steven Wienberg, I think (I hope!) it was, once reamarked about how remarkable it seems that our questions always honestly generate far more new questions than answers, so I'm not completely out of line, here, contrary to what may be quite conventionally viewed as popular opinion, especially in this context, i.e. an experimental situation, to wit; Yahoo! ANSWERS, a beta program.\nI believe Dr. Weinberg was involved somewhat in chaos theory, among other quite facinating things, I'm sure.\nIf memory serves me right, the term "carbonaceous" refers to, specifically, a geological era or period characteristic in reference to the more general use of the term as being rich in carbon, or consisting of carbon. Given carbon to be often associated with our familiar forms of DNA-based life, if it can be reasonably and plausibly demonstrated that any significant quantity or quality of carbon was introduced into the terrestrial environment via space, then this should prove to be interesting, at least, if not, indeed, rather provocative and even potentially quite instructive in terms of proper, universally themed deictic and didactic.\nSo, in my expert opinion, as the world's very first, ever, formal fact theorist, my best answer to your question is, "Good Question!"\nKeep up the good work, and keep excellent track of your sources, even though they shall invariably change with "progress" and "improvement" such as that so far demonstrated by several millennia of so-so documented record. (Everyone, especially the Catholic Church, for example, wants to rewrite history. Even the noble scientists pursuing "nothing but the truth", and so on in their quest to convert followers to their newest, "modern" religion, in theory AND practice, have been known to tamper with data for personal ambition, just a bit too frequently for comfort, among other things...)
650039
what a troubling Q: but i agree with that 6k yrs of this planet... the carbon dating is nothing but a paleontological gibberish... the world is not a million or so yrs old... mybe they just need a lil more tyme checking the computations... one million yr wud mean a day or a week in the christian "dating" watdayathink?? (,"}
261613
Prior to there being any life, all the carbon on Earth was in the form of simple molecules that form without living things. Amino acids, single nucleotides, a few sugars. \n\nImagine if one took all the living things in the world, and all the formerly living things that are now coal, gas and oil, and broke them down into those simple original molecules. Now dissolve all that into the oceans.\n\nWhat you would have is a weak broth. Weak, but very nutritious. If a single modern bacteria was released in this broth, it would easily take over the Earth. \n\nEven a much simpler form of life than a modern bacteria would be able to multiply in the primordial soup. One could see competition between these lifeforms, minimal at first, escalate into war once most of the nutrients were used up. Evolution would then favor the development of more complexity.
752376
Carbon-14 is a radiactive isotope of Carbon, Carbon-12 (which is what most of the Carbon in the world is) is not radiactive.  Carbon-14 naturally breaks down into non-radiactive Nitrogen at a very regular and slow rate.\n\nCarbon-14 is generated mainly by the effect of solar radiation interracting with Nitrogen in the atmosphere, so that new Carbon-14 is constantly being created at a steady rate just as old Carbon-14 is constantly decaying at a steady rate.  The rate of Carbon-14 creation from Nitrogen and the rate of Carbon-14 breakdown back into Nitrogen are essentially the same, meaning the ratio of Carbon-14 divided by Carbon-12 is basically stable in the atmosphere.\n\nAs long as an organism is living, it is taking in carbon from the environment.  This carbon is a stable mixture of isotopes, so the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 remains the same while the organism remains alive.\n\nWhen the living thing dies, the intake of new carbon ceases.  The radioactive carbon-14 continues breaking down at a known rate and is not replaced with fresh carbon from the environment.  Chemical processes such as decay and fossilization affect both the Carbon-14 and the Carbon-12 equally, so these processes do not affect the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12.  By measuring the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 a fairly accurate estimate can be made of how long the Carbon-14 has been breaking down without being replenished, and this is the amount of time the thing has been dead (assuming it has not been re-contaminated with fresh carbon from the environment).\n\nSince geological dating is mainly concerned with rocks, there are 2 things preventing carbon-14 from being used:\n\nFirst, the rocks were not living things taking in carbon from their surroundings.  They were formed through volcanic or geological activity from other things whose makeup is not known, so you don't have a baseline value for "at the time of this rock's solidification, the exact ratio of C14 to C12 would be ___" the way you do with a living thing (where, at the time of the organism's death, the exact ratio of C14 to C12 would be that of the environment in general).\n\nSecond, rocks tend to be many millions to over a billion years old, which means that even if they HAD been living things at the time they solidified, the remaining levels of carbon-14 would be so tiny that they would be statistically invalid.  You just can't get anything approaching a reasonable answer that far out, the errors become more significant than the mean value.\n\nCarbon-14 divided by Carbon-12 represents the ratio of the unsatble radiactive carbon (which slowly disappears as it changes into Nitrogen) to the stable non-radiactive carbon (which does not disappear).  When a living thing first dies, it's remains will contain the maximum level of Carbon-14 atoms per gram of Carbon-12 atoms.  As time goes on, more and more of the Carbon-14 breaks down into nitrogen, meaning there are fewer and fewer Carbon-14 atoms remaining per gram of Carbon-12 ataoms, and by determining how many Carbon-14 atoms are left per gram of Carbon-12 atoms, you can determine how long the sample has been decaying without replenishing it's carbon -- in other words, how long it has been dead.
810916
It's, indeed, hard to grasp something as ambiguous.\nSo many religions have this "End of all things" theme, so it's confusing.\nThat's why I just stopped caring, and started living realistically, and reading books that make sense, i.e. Darwinism.
13656
Actually, present modeling of the carbon cycle indicates that there is an imbalance in the cycle. We are missing over 2 billion tons of carbon each year that we cannot account for. This carbon is being absorbed by some part of the planet that we have not been able to identify. \n\nI quote:"Given this analysis we find that there is an imbalance -- we need an additional "sink" of -2.2  (3 - 5.2) x1015 g C to balance the global C budget.  In other words, we are "missing" over 2 billion tons of C each year; this shows how incomplete our understanding of the global carbon cycle is at present.  Although it is possible that this missing sink could be found in any of the major pools of carbon on earth, it is most likely that the pools with a shorter residence time such as vegetation, soils or the ocean (compared to rocks) are most important.  Recent models indicate that terrestrial ecosystems are the most likely repository of this carbon."\n\n From :http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle_new.html\n\nThis inablity to balance the carbon cycle using our present understanding of carbon inputs and carbon sinks shows how poorly we understand the global carbon cycle. What this means, is that based on our understanding of the carbon man is putting into the atmosphere, we should actually have MUCH more carbon in the atmosphere. We can't account for it all, and this is one reason global warming due to carbon dioxide is still a controversial idea.
542643
People useally know that Carbon exist in forms of graphite and diamond. graphite and diamond are the two naturally occuring forms of carbon.  However back in 1985, Robert Curl, Harold Kroto and Richard Smalley, were able to create third allotrope of carbon, Buckminsterfullerenes also known as Buckyball using Using laser evaporation of graphite!  The structure of C60 is a truncated icosahedron, which resembles a round soccer ball of the type made of hexagons and pentagons, with a carbon atom at the corners of each hexagon and a bond along each edge.\n\nSince its invention/discovery, much research has been done to create more allotropes of carbon.  The nano technology you hear today has its roots in discovery and concepts of buckyball.
438769
Carbon has been known since ancient times.  Diamond and graphite both occur readily in nature.
585233
What do you mean by "structure?"  Technically, it's a life form, so it's carbon based.  However, it's "fibers" for lack of better term, are silicates.