Dan
The New Helper.Net gives me great Anxiety... o.O;;
- Reaction score
- 159
Let's all seriously just ignore FC this time around people! XD
Your last post is the first post in which I think you are starting to understand what I have been saying all along, but you are still just a bit off. I have never debated the point that the atom existed in said configuration for a fraction of a second. I have stated that point about 4 different times. I have never strictly said that scientists didn't observe it in said configuration; I said that maybe we should not count it as an element.
We could probably make ANYTHING exist in a specific configuration for a given amount of time, assuming the time involved in doing so is small enough and also measurable. There needs to be a line drawn at some point. If I force a certain number of protons and neutrons together for .00000000000000000000000001 seconds, and observe it, does it count as an element? Perhaps you would agree that that is too short a time to call such a thing an element. If you do agree on that point, then we are in an area where we need to define what is an acceptable amount of time to be considered stable enough.
Now onto the blinking argument. Blinking is an action. If it happens in .0001 or .000000001 seconds and we observe it as happening then it happened. Likewise, if I force people to live in your home for a minute, an hour, or a day they still were in your house at some point. We both agree on these points.
But the people I forced into your home are still not part of your family. -_- There is no cohesiveness to them being in your home that makes them wanted there, or makes them want to be there. You don't simply count them as family members just because they were forced to be in your house at one point in time. Once they are allowed to leave they would probably run for the hills.
If you need a dozen people to hold the walls of a house together (without nails or anything to hold it up on its own) at what point can you call it a house? The second all the people let go and try to go inside, the house falls down. Was it ever a house? Could we say that it was a suitable home? It definitely looked like a house, but could never have stood on its own. It was definitely observed as a house when they were holding it up, but it fell down shortly after. It never functioned as a house should.
So, again, my only point was that I feel as though elements should have some sort of affinity to be in a configuration for a specific amount of time before we count them as a true element. I feel like we might be forcing the completion of a table for the sake of completing a table. The standard model is an ugly thing. No one knows why but it sure doesn't make a lot of sense. Like the standard model, the periodic table need not necessarily be nice and orderly.
(fyi I don't like when people call me things like "Danny boy" or "Pal" to spice up their argument... There simply is no need to act as such. Additionally, I am not angry or worked up in any way. I appreciate good arguments and information. I am not trying to do anything other than engage in intellectual exchanges with people I like. I have nothing against you in any way. You have been very awesome in the past; I simply feel as though you have been calling me out as "stupid" and taken on a negative attitude towards me in this thread. I am not stupid, but at times am ignorant. It would be impossible to know everything.)
All that being said, I honestly don't know what we gain from this whole thing. Perhaps there is information to be learned from this new element and perhaps it meets a bunch of standards that scientists in this field are cool with. I honestly don't know. I would never try and control what projects scientists work on or anything like that. Great things come from all over the place.
Your last post is the first post in which I think you are starting to understand what I have been saying all along, but you are still just a bit off. I have never debated the point that the atom existed in said configuration for a fraction of a second. I have stated that point about 4 different times. I have never strictly said that scientists didn't observe it in said configuration; I said that maybe we should not count it as an element.
We could probably make ANYTHING exist in a specific configuration for a given amount of time, assuming the time involved in doing so is small enough and also measurable. There needs to be a line drawn at some point. If I force a certain number of protons and neutrons together for .00000000000000000000000001 seconds, and observe it, does it count as an element? Perhaps you would agree that that is too short a time to call such a thing an element. If you do agree on that point, then we are in an area where we need to define what is an acceptable amount of time to be considered stable enough.
Now onto the blinking argument. Blinking is an action. If it happens in .0001 or .000000001 seconds and we observe it as happening then it happened. Likewise, if I force people to live in your home for a minute, an hour, or a day they still were in your house at some point. We both agree on these points.
But the people I forced into your home are still not part of your family. -_- There is no cohesiveness to them being in your home that makes them wanted there, or makes them want to be there. You don't simply count them as family members just because they were forced to be in your house at one point in time. Once they are allowed to leave they would probably run for the hills.
If you need a dozen people to hold the walls of a house together (without nails or anything to hold it up on its own) at what point can you call it a house? The second all the people let go and try to go inside, the house falls down. Was it ever a house? Could we say that it was a suitable home? It definitely looked like a house, but could never have stood on its own. It was definitely observed as a house when they were holding it up, but it fell down shortly after. It never functioned as a house should.
So, again, my only point was that I feel as though elements should have some sort of affinity to be in a configuration for a specific amount of time before we count them as a true element. I feel like we might be forcing the completion of a table for the sake of completing a table. The standard model is an ugly thing. No one knows why but it sure doesn't make a lot of sense. Like the standard model, the periodic table need not necessarily be nice and orderly.
(fyi I don't like when people call me things like "Danny boy" or "Pal" to spice up their argument... There simply is no need to act as such. Additionally, I am not angry or worked up in any way. I appreciate good arguments and information. I am not trying to do anything other than engage in intellectual exchanges with people I like. I have nothing against you in any way. You have been very awesome in the past; I simply feel as though you have been calling me out as "stupid" and taken on a negative attitude towards me in this thread. I am not stupid, but at times am ignorant. It would be impossible to know everything.)
All that being said, I honestly don't know what we gain from this whole thing. Perhaps there is information to be learned from this new element and perhaps it meets a bunch of standards that scientists in this field are cool with. I honestly don't know. I would never try and control what projects scientists work on or anything like that. Great things come from all over the place.