Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087306 Posts in 72013 Topics- by 19243 Members - Latest Member: CABurton159
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Science for Dummies  (Read 2715 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:29PM »

As explained previously all the natural elements but hydrogen are made in stars.  However man knows how to make elements.  It was first done in 1937.  The following is a list of man made elements.  Notice Plutonium among them.  An element man has made in large quantities.

Element - Symbol - At. No.
Technetium - Tc - 43
Promethium - Pm - 61
Astatine - At - 85
Francium - Fr - 87
Neptunium - Np - 93
Plutonium - Pu - 94
Americium - Am - 95
Curium - Cm - 96
Berkelium - Bk - 97
Californium - Cf - 98
Einsteinium - Es - 99
Fermium - Fm - 100
Mendelevium - Md - 101
Nobelium - No - 102
Lawrencium - Lr - 103
Rutherfordium - Rf - 104
Dubnium   - Db - 105
Seaborgium - Sg - 106
Bohrium - Bh - 107
Hassium - Hs - 108
Meitnerium - Mt - 109
Darmstadtium - Ds - 110
Roentgenium - Rg - 111
Copernicium - Cn - 112
Ununtrium - Uut - 114
Ununpentium - Uup - 115
Ununseptium - Uus - 117
Ununoctium - Uuo - 118

Of these Technetium, Plutonium and Americium are used fairly extensively.  In fact, if you have a modern ionization smoke detector, you have Americium in your house.

Not from scratch.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:30PM »

As explained previously all the natural elements but hydrogen are made in stars.  However man knows how to make elements.  It was first done in 1937.  The following is a list of man made elements.  Notice Plutonium among them.  An element man has made in large quantities.
 
 ... [ list of man-made elements ]
 
Of these Technetium, Plutonium and Americium are used fairly extensively.  In fact, if you have a modern ionization smoke detector, you have Americium in your house.

I'm really hoping someone creates unobtanium one of these days--at least I think I am ... though James Cameron may have rights to the name.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:33PM »

Carl Sagan also said:
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create the universe.
 
But he also knew We don't know. ≠ God did it.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Livonia, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6924
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:36PM »

Carl Sagan also said:
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create the universe.
 
But he also knew We don't know. ≠ God did it.

I don't really know what the term "from scratch" means regarding creating elements. The colloquial use just kind of breaks. Starting from basic components, maybe? How basic? Do I have to invent the human cochlea before I can write a trombone sonata?
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:42PM »

The one thing that humans can make from scratch is a mess.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
ddickerson

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9684

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Aug 27, 2017, 02:49PM »

On a side note, I'm glad to see Dusty posting.  It means he still has power and has not been flooded out of his house.  Spacetown is in pretty wet shape.

We don't have any element making processes on this planet with the exception of some rather rare radioactive elements (most of which are actually man-made).  The elements are generated elsewhere.  If you refuse to believe that all those stars you see in the sky are actually nuclear fusion engines, I guess God is a good second guess.

Thank you! High and dry and utilities.
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:23PM »

Not from scratch.
That would not be the best approach from a efficiency perspective.  In any case, the only element that is made from 'scratch' is hydrogen.  All other's are made from it, and we can now (as of 2016) create hydrogen atoms by the condensation of a suitable electron-proton plasma.  Ta-daaaaaa!
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Radar

*
Offline Offline

Location: Rochester NY
Joined: Feb 23, 2012
Posts: 704

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:25PM »

I think we place too much emphasis on trying to reconcile religion and science, and trying to disprove or prove God's existence with science. Religion isn't about how God created the Universe, it's about who created it, and our relationship to the creator, and to each other.  Faith isn't about proof, and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively the existence of a supreme being who guided creation in all it's glory.  
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:28PM »


I'm really hoping someone creates unobtanium one of these days--at least I think I am ... though James Cameron may have rights to the name.
I heard the name used before it was discovered on Pandora.

BTW, the creator of a new element gets to name it.  So get at it Byron, create some unobtainiun.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Aug 27, 2017, 03:45PM »

Faith isn't about proof, and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively the existence of a supreme being who guided creation in all it's glory.

And that's what secure faith looks like.
 
Thank you Radar.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: Aug 27, 2017, 05:27PM »

...

Copernicium - Cn - 112
Ununtrium - Uut - 114
Ununpentium - Uup - 115
Ununseptium - Uus - 117
Ununoctium - Uuo - 118

I'm not picking nits critically. I was interested and checked out Wikipedia and it had different info than your table.  So assuming Wikipedia is correct you missed a beat but recovered well.

Ununtrium - Uut was 113 not 114.

but anyway its been discovered now so it has a real name rather than just a placeholder. As do a few other elements in your list.

Nihonium - Nh - 113
Flerovium - Fl - 114
Moscovium - Mc - 115
Livermorium - Lv - 116
Tennessine - Ts - 117
Oganesson - Og - 118

That's all the room there is in the 7th row of the Periodic Table but there are potentially more elements but they would have to be in the next row.

And its cool to know that Flerovium should have a doubly magic isotope.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Online Online

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51144
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Aug 27, 2017, 05:50PM »

Man, when I was in college the last one on the list was Lawrencium (103) :/

I think this new row will have an extra "additional" series since we now have all the s, p, d, and f orbitals.  I guess we are into g.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Aug 27, 2017, 07:20PM »

My kids wouldn't have any problem putting me in the Bronze age
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: Aug 27, 2017, 07:52PM »

I'm not picking nits critically. I was interested and checked out Wikipedia and it had different info than your table.  So assuming Wikipedia is correct you missed a beat but recovered well.

Ununtrium - Uut was 113 not 114.

but anyway its been discovered now so it has a real name rather than just a placeholder. As do a few other elements in your list.

Nihonium - Nh - 113
Flerovium - Fl - 114
Moscovium - Mc - 115
Livermorium - Lv - 116
Tennessine - Ts - 117
Oganesson - Og - 118

That's all the room there is in the 7th row of the Periodic Table but there are potentially more elements but they would have to be in the next row.

And its cool to know that Flerovium should have a doubly magic isotope.

You, seems my list was out of date.  Skipped two, 113 and 116.  I guess I've got some more reading on my late.  My list is so old it did note even have the names assigned....  Can't turn you back for a minute these days.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:30AM »

I guess BOB is arguing that the pyramid of knowledge that people before us have assembled and which we can climb without having to duplicate all their work from the lowest layer is a false thing.
Well, no.

But say... walk into a bookstore. Maybe they are dying off now, but they used to go up all of the time. Easy. Quick. What would it be to build it yourself? To create the materials for the building, build the building, create the paper, write the books... Shoot, even to create and power the lights. Far more than a person could do in a lifetime, yet the multitudes can do it in a matter of weeks. 

Same principal. There is too much science to know it alone. Most only know a very small bit and trust (or don't care about) far far more. Like the electrician that runs the wires for the store, or the plumber that sets the pipes for the bathrooms. And that's just the scientists. The public simply walks by, buys what they want when they want, with very little thought to how it got there.


So... if you're hunting for answers you can actually understand... ie know what's in it, behind it, how it works.... science really doesn't offer much more than religion. Simply too much to learn. Most is taken on trust. And trust... by it's nature... is blind.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:39AM »

Why not? What's wrong with studying clues and where possible re-creating the conditions we think led to said clues to see if the ideas hold water? It sounds like you're asking how we study history and figure out anything at all.

Nothing wrong with them at all. But the very nature of the ideas says they cannot be testing nor recreated. The big bang, would destroy everything. Evolution... is far to slow to observe.

At best, the theories will remain untested, unproven ideas. Doesn't mean you can't try to understand them.

But if it is a problem to look to trust or faith, to take on a principal without ever being able to fully know it or prove it... saying the big bang created everything, or we evolved... these are not without those same faults.

I am religious. I accept that I cannot know all, nor do I pretend.

What I find curious, is the criticism of religion for these things, and proclaiming a replacement... that suffers from them as well.

Why do they even come up? You can reject religion without going to something else...
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Aug 29, 2017, 04:46AM »

I think we place too much emphasis on trying to reconcile religion and science, and trying to disprove or prove God's existence with science. Religion isn't about how God created the Universe, it's about who created it, and our relationship to the creator, and to each other.  Faith isn't about proof, and we are never going to be able to prove or disprove conclusively the existence of a supreme being who guided creation in all it's glory.

Yup yup yup.

Even in the natural world... we are finding there are things much much bigger than what a single person can understand. We just aren't that smart... to understand it all. Religion says we can't. Science proves it. People pushing science say that religion has holes or problems, and thus it is not good to follow. And yet, science is also littered with holes. But science works to close them! So do theologians. But holes are inherent in religion! As well in science, or should we try to recreate the universe?

Religion is why things work. Science is how things works. So why blur the lines? Why try to answer religious questions with scientific answers?
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:13AM »

Unfortunately I'm a little pressed for time to go into this in great detail, but the simple reason we have realms is that the universe works differently at different levels.
Elements "work differently" than compounds, which work differently from cells, which work differently from plants, which work differently from ecosystems... Yet that is only in how we view them. In reality, they all function as they function and nothing happens in isolation of the other parts/pieces.

Einstein is one of the big figures in one of your models, but even as he put the math together for that, he searched for the greater theory of everything.



The price of gas has multiple points of impact on the longevity of roads. But if you are looking only at parts... you miss the greater system.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:17AM »

Well, no.
 
But say... walk into a bookstore. Maybe they are dying off now, but they used to go up all of the time. Easy. Quick. What would it be to build it yourself? To create the materials for the building, build the building, create the paper, write the books... Shoot, even to create and power the lights. Far more than a person could do in a lifetime, yet the multitudes can do it in a matter of weeks. 
 
Same principal. There is too much science to know it alone. Most only know a very small bit and trust (or don't care about) far far more. Like the electrician that runs the wires for the store, or the plumber that sets the pipes for the bathrooms. And that's just the scientists. The public simply walks by, buys what they want when they want, with very little thought to how it got there.
 
 
So... if you're hunting for answers you can actually understand... ie know what's in it, behind it, how it works.... science really doesn't offer much more than religion. Simply too much to learn. Most is taken on trust. And trust... by it's nature... is blind.

This is why it's appropriate to accept the tenets of science that have survived the test of time as "established science", and current research with a grain of salt. That's why, quite unlike most religious doctrine, Science (reified) doesn't claim to be certain about findings, just that the given data were produced in the given manner. It's why we take all of science with at least a small grain of salt, even if only technically.
 
So yeah, that's the right mentality. It's also not the mentality virtually any believers apply to their religious matters of faith. It's precisely the opposite mentality, which is the point--the point of both religion and science. Science is about accepting and embracing uncertainty and the intellectual humility that it imposes, and religion is about faith and affirmation and rejecting the insecurity most feel when genuinely facing uncertainty.
 
You're not suggesting anything here that's not part and parcel of Science though, you're talking about precisely why science and religion are antithetical paradigms.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5662

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Aug 29, 2017, 05:26AM »


This is why it's appropriate to accept the tenets of science that have survived the test of time as "established science", and current research with a grain of salt.
Well no... that's why science, nor it's tenants have any place in this at all.


You're not suggesting anything here that's not part and parcel of Science though, you're talking about precisely why science and religion are antithetical paradigms.
Nor have I ever. Funny how the "science defenders" got all defensive in response to science's inability to answer religious questions. You're attacking science! By saying it is flawed? Science says that about itself. By saying it doesn't have all of the answers? Science says that by itself. So again... why keep bringing up science in response to religious discussion, as if it is the answer?


Science is about accepting and embracing uncertainty and the intellectual humility that it imposes, and religion is about faith and affirmation and rejecting the insecurity most feel when genuinely facing uncertainty.
That may be the theory, but in practice... science, by it's sheer scope these days, involves far more blind trust than religion ever will.

Meanwhile, intellectual humility is an actual tenant of christianity.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: