It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IUPAC announces the verification of the discoveries of four new chemical elements

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do not distrust SCIENCE, but I disbelieve that it is some kind of entity that has awareness and only one goal.


Lol. Yes you do. It's beyond obvious in every thread you post in that deals with (at this point) any science topic. Hell your reasoning in this VERY thread for why not you don't want to trust this information is because it took four years+ to verify it. Yet that is COMPLETELY normal and is part of the peer review process (you know so that the information is accurate?).


Why do YOU believe the mantra that science is what it is, and is only about revealing the truth of things ??

On this planet, of all places !!


I don't. That's what the peer review process is for. And no, frauds don't have to be disproven in my life time. The peer review process transcends human life spans because old people tend to be too engrained with established thinking versus newer ideas. So it may take a new generation to discount old thinking.


When I look at the schooling scientists receive, and just how much of it is too CONTROL HOW, and WHAT, and WHY, and then not say that SCIENCE, is a learned and highly controllable SYSTEM.......


Yet you present no proof of this actually occurring. Just paranoia of the system. Try actually DISPROVING science with actual evidence instead of presenting paranoia as evidence for why something isn't true for once.


I say that SCIENCE is what it will be ALLOWED to be.

THIS IS PURE FACT.


I say you have an irrational paranoia of science.
edit on 5-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

THIS IS PURE FACT.


I don't think that word means what you think it means.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



This is some pretty cool news


And pointless.

I can't recall the heaviest naturally occurring element, but I'm pretty sure that everything beyond 100 on the periodic table is useless. Those elements live and die in a moment so I don't see any practical applications for these elements and I dare say this was another 'because we can' experiment.

But still it is an impressive feat and perhaps it could shed light on the quantum world and frankly if anyone can truly understand quantum mechanics they should wear a badge.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Did you not see the discussion on page 1 about the Island of Stability?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eisegesis

Well that is just proof positive that the peer review process is not only working as intended but isn't as corrupt as many suggest. Science takes time to be verified.


It could be equally valid to state that this is just proof positive that the scientific paradigms are too resistive to change...

Jaden



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

The only people I hear saying "scientific paradigms are too resistive to change" are people who have never been involved in academic research. Ever.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

If science were absolute, we would know everything as absolute and there would be no CERN, no finding new elements, etc. It is in the lack of absolute that we become enlightened.

One "studies" the sciences, they do not "know" the sciences.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eisegesis

Well that is just proof positive that the peer review process is not only working as intended but isn't as corrupt as many suggest. Science takes time to be verified.


It could be equally valid to state that this is just proof positive that the scientific paradigms are too resistive to change...

Jaden


Explain yourself more thoroughly.



posted on Jan, 6 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
whats gonna be fun is when we develop tech to precisely control the addition of nucleons to a target. then there will be no more doubt about islands of stability if they exist or not.

What will be even neater is we discover a set of exotic particles that can bind like protons and neutrons do in regular baryonic matter. Then you have to add a second page to the periodic table and update metallurgy and chemical text books. If the particles are smaller than common nucleons then look out. chemical reactions will have the power of nuclear reactions and nuclear reactions will have the power of antimatter reactions or even greater. you would have materials that won't melt fold spindle or mutilate inside of gas giants or the surface of venus or the bottom of the ocean or inside magma chambers or the interior of the sun or on the surface of white dwarfs or neutron stars.

also positions in the regular periodic table that are unstable would be stable on the new table with the new particles. for example second periodic table plutonium would last forever. this would mean those elements chemical and physical properties could be used in materials and chemistry and so on.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Someone should drop the word "Chemical" from the title. Its the table of elements, not table of chemical elements.

Chemical usually refers to compounds.

Are these more momentary elements, here and gone in an instant?

Whoopee…


Technically, a chemical is just anything made of matter. These are almost definitely transient elements, hence why it took so long to make them official.




originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: intrptr

This news makes me long for the days of learning about 'p' orbitals, ions, polyatomic ions, anions, cations, and ......how to safely use a bunsen burner. Unsafe means evacuation and expulsion!

Anyway, interesting info. Will look out for updates on this story.


Chemists haven't used Bunsen burners for some decades, so you won't need to worry about that.



a reply to: ParasuvO

What utter nonsense. Science is not an entity, it is a process.

And as for knowing everything about everything - are you serious? The world and beyond is an extraordinarily complex place. We learn new things every day. Some things we don't know because we simplly have not stumbled across them, other things we don't necessarily have the technology to observe. Just because we don't know everything does not mean that the scientific community is being stifled, or that we know nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


Technically, a chemical is just anything made of matter.

Little more complex than that.

Elements are the base. Chemicals are various prepared forms of them and compounds.

But I'm not a technician, don't know the 'technical' words used today. My day we used Bunsen burners, lol.

But the elements haven't changed, even though they get transitory glimpses of some 'new' ones from time to time.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


Technically, a chemical is just anything made of matter.

Little more complex than that.

Elements are the base. Chemicals are various prepared forms of them and compounds.

But I'm not a technician, don't know the 'technical' words used today. My day we used Bunsen burners, lol.

But the elements haven't changed, even though they get transitory glimpses of some 'new' ones from time to time.


Elements are the building blocks for compounds and molecules. The term chemical is a little vague and has different connotations to laypeople, but it is used by chemists to encompass elements as well as more complex structures.

Bunsen burners are still bizarrely used in chemistry classes in high schools here. It's never once mentioned that no chemist still uses them. I personally still use them sometimes, but never when I'm in a chemistry lab. Way too dangerous. Their only real use these days is in biology labs, as they're good for maintaining a sterile environment.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


Elements are the building blocks for compounds and molecules. The term chemical is a little vague and has different connotations to laypeople,

Why I had trouble with the thread title originally, they didn't discover a "chemical", just an element.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


Elements are the building blocks for compounds and molecules. The term chemical is a little vague and has different connotations to laypeople,

Why I had trouble with the thread title originally, they didn't discover a "chemical", just an element.


Did you read the rest of that sentence? And "just" an element? My goodness. It's far more impressive than discovering a new compound, or "chemical," as you might say. I make new compounds semi-regularly myself and I can promise you that it's not nearly as noteworthy!



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


I make new compounds semi-regularly myself and I can promise you that it's not nearly as noteworthy!

For you, being a chemist and all. A transuranic element is special, I know.

Especially fleeting, impossible to store and or utilize.

Now tell me how nuclear physics is going to change the world for the better, improving everything and everyone.

Thats debatable and another subject.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


I make new compounds semi-regularly myself and I can promise you that it's not nearly as noteworthy!

For you, being a chemist and all. A transuranic element is special, I know.

Especially fleeting, impossible to store and or utilize.

Now tell me how nuclear physics is going to change the world for the better, improving everything and everyone.

Thats debatable and another subject.


It's not special because the periodic table holds some weird, sentimental value to me (it doesn't). If anything, it's more important to a physicist than a chemist. Anyway, it's new knowledge; pushing the boundaries of what we know. More practically, it edges us towards knowing more about the nucleus of an atom and the hypothesised islands of stability. As well, the techniques and technology we develop getting there can be applied more broadly and find more real-world use.

Maybe you don't agree with the root of those applications, and I'm not saying I do either, but you have to be realistic. Whether you approve of it or not, the world has nuclear power and nuclear stockpiles. You can't wish it away because you don't like it. Developing our understanding in this area only helps us to improve things like safety of storage, waste disposal etc. That at least is a good thing.

Edit: I just wanted to add, though it's unimportant, I have no academic interest in transuranic elements. I don't even care much for most metals. I'm involved in organic chemistry. Carbon all the way.
edit on 30-1-2016 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: hypervalentiodine


Whether you approve of it or not, the world has nuclear power and nuclear stockpiles. You can't wish it away because you don't like it. Developing our understanding in this area only helps us to improve things like safety of storage, waste disposal etc. That at least is a good thing.

Really? Nuclear bombs threatening world annihilation, nuclear spent fuel and waste storage, leaks, cancer, friggin meltdowns?

I would go into depleted Uranium munitions used in foreign countries, but you can google that for yourself, if you are really interested in 'improving things', that is. The sad fact is the Industrial nuclear and military complex think in terms of weaponry and profit, all else being secondary. As long as they run things they will continue to pollute and destroy with the 'amazing' technology derived from man made unstable matter.

search



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What has any of that got to do with my post?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hypervalentiodine

You were telling me tough, bombs and pollution exist and I think they are unacceptable. Just my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join