201

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 02/11/2016 17:58:29 »

I don't think that the rare Earth elements (f block) had to be forced into the periodic table... They fit very nicely, that bit usually gets yanked out so that the dimensions of the table are closer to that of a page in a book or a poster. An extended version of the table can be found here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/32_column_PT.jpg/650px-32_column_PT.jpg

Many thanks Chiral for the link, which I've carefully studied.

It displays the "Periodic Table" as a perfectly rectangular block, consisting of 7 horizontal rows, and 32 vertical columns.  Like a page in a book or a poster, as you say.
And this, perhaps demonstrates strongly the point I alluded to earlier - that we intensely want to make the elements fit into an ideal geometrical "table".

However the "table" shown in your link isn't ideal at all.  A lot of it is empty, blank squares, with no actual elements in them.

For example, consider the top row of the Table.  This has the element "Hydrogen" at the far left.  And "Helium" over at the far right.  Between these two elements there's nothing but a row of empty squares.

How do you explain that?

202

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why is the universe not chaotic because of time differences

« on: 31/10/2016 23:29:44 »

Psychological time zx16?

that exist too. To me that's a result of consciousness, although has little to do with ones wristwatch.

Obviously you're right, psychological time does exist.  Like when you go to sleep, and lose consciousness (intermittently) for 6, or 7 or 8 hours. Those hours seem to pass more quickly than if you'd been awake.  That seems fairly easy to account for.

But is psychological time only a result of "consciousness".  For example, don't you find that being on the computer makes time seem to pass more quickly, even though you ARE awake - and conscious - all the time you're on it?

203

General Science / Re: Could humanity survive a nuclear war?

« on: 31/10/2016 22:31:24 »

So women probably wouldn't start a nuclear war.

We never know what is the main purpose of war in man. I hope the legacy of Obama will not be a pessimistic scenario.

The main purpose of war in man, is to win by killing all rival males, then mate with the women.
The women want to mate with the winner, as he has shown superior genes by killing all the other weaker men.

What's Obama got to do with it?

204

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 31/10/2016 22:09:20 »

Bored Chemist, once the idea of a "Table" of elements has got a grip on us, we have to make all the elements fit into it.
Even if they don't seem to, like "rare earths" and others, they must be forced in.

Quite rightly.  Because the ideal of "Table", as Aristotle perceived long ago, is pure and perfect, and transcends the banal ugliness of physical reality. So we should follow the ideal, and put all the elements in their proper places.

At least you Chemists can do this, and deserve respect for it.  Physicists want to do the same, but they've got very confused lately, and just run around frantically inventing new "particles" all the time.

205

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 31/10/2016 21:13:04 »

Thanks chiral,. You say we've "probed" and found Dark Matter to be invisible in the electro-magnetic spectrum. Therefore it must be made of some exotic stuff, like neutrinos

I suppose Russian radar-operators could "probe" US B-2 stealth-bombers, find them to be invisible on radar, and report that B-2's therefore must be made of neutrinos.
But the B-2's are only made of metal, just shaped and coated in a way that absorbs and deflects the probing radar emissions, so the B-2's don't show up.

Perhaps "superheavy elements" have a similar effect when we try to probe them?

206

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why is the universe not chaotic because of time differences

« on: 31/10/2016 20:21:27 »

I think Phyti's right in suggesting that our human preoccupation with Time is a "security thing".  It comes about because we're born, live a pitifully short number of years, 70+ perhaps, then die.  And we don't like the idea of that.  Or the personal experience of getting older and watching our bodies get wrinkled and worn-out.  We fear death.

To us "time" is synonymous with "life".

But suppose we had much longer lives, lasting 700, or 7,000, or 7,000,000 years.  Or especially - if we were immortal, and lived as long as the Universe exists - we wouldn't be  bothered about Time.  We'd just say, Time is one thing happening after another, so what?

Hopefully, we'll soon be able say this, as Science will  by 2050, eliminate human death and make us immortal.

207

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 31/10/2016 18:32:45 »

We don't add things to the periodic table; it's already there. We just make the things that are in it.

I salute you sir, as an apparent true "Aristotelian"!   Aristotle said the very same thing -  that the idea of a "table", is already there.  It exists as an eternal, pure, thought-form : "tableness".  All we do, when we make an actual dining-room table, is make the wooden bits, nails, glue etc, that are in it.

Mind you, you can't really be an Aristotelian if you're a chemist, as his chemical ideas about there being just "four elements" - Earth, Air, Fire and Water, are unsound.

208

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 31/10/2016 18:00:58 »

Is not the reason for the hunt for elements with ever shorter lives the dream that past 118 there maybe at 126 "an island of stability" with a relatively long life and interesting properties.

Yes, and perhaps this "dream" as you call it, is a true intuitive reaction against the very idea of so-called "Dark Matter".

What if "Dark Matter" isn't some alien thing made of weird particles, but consists of ordinary proton/neutron elements in the "island of stability"  -  at 126, and possibly other "islands" beyond.  Elements like these, would probably have long-lives and "interesting properties", as you say. 

Such properties might account for observations such as anomalous galactic rotations. These are currently ascribed to the presence of "Dark Matter". Couldn't they be due to the presence of "super-heavy" elements which are higher in the Periodic Table than we've yet discovered?

209

Chemistry / Re: Could you charge a flat car battery with a pocket sized charger?

« on: 31/10/2016 16:43:09 »

Isn't a small charger only suitable for petrol vehicles, because the fuel in a petrol engine gets ignited by a simple electric spark. Such a spark can be produced by even a small charger.

Whereas, in a diesel engine, the fuel won't ignite, unless it gets heavily physically compressed.  And a small charger can't provide enough energy to produce the necessary compression.

210

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why is the universe not chaotic because of time differences

« on: 29/10/2016 22:02:05 »

I think the answer is simple: Because it JUST ISN'T.

That's a dramatic way of cutting the Gordian Knot!  It appeals by its simplicity. But is it fully satisfactory from a scientific viewpoint?
I mean, suppose you were asked  "Why isn't the speed of light infinite, instead of 300,000 kps?"

And you said "Because it JUST ISN'T".

Um, actually, thinking about it, you might have a good point..........

211

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 29/10/2016 21:28:33 »

If we define elements as atoms with unique numbers of protons, then there are already 118 known elements. If we include all isotopes (unique numbers of protons and neutrons), then there are already several hundred. unique nuclei known. I'm sure there are all kinds of crazy elements formed during catastrophic events involving neutron stars, even if they are only short-lived.

Thanks chiral, when you mention "crazy elements", I take it you're envisaging that such elements, even if short-lived and formed in catastrophic events, would still have nuclei containing only particles of "standard matter", ie protons and neutrons.

Might there be elements whose nuclei are made of particles of "Dark Matter".  I mean, can Dark Matter form atoms, and "elements", which could be arranged into a kind of "Dark Matter Periodic Table".

Is there any way we can find out?

212

General Science / Re: Could humanity survive a nuclear war?

« on: 29/10/2016 20:10:10 »

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.

JFK's quote is only a rehash of the old Roman maxim "Si vis pacem, para bellum" ((If you wish for peace, prepare for war).

But that's only a sophism. A vain attempt to evade the disgraceful fact that humans actually like fighting wars.  We don't really "wish for peace". War is in our blood. We're never happier than when we're "in action", fighting and killing each other.  It has an enormous attraction.  That's why we like watching war-movies, and playing war-related video games.

And it's why we give awards, such as the "Victoria Cross", or the "Congressional Medal of Honor", to men who have killed a lot of other men. The medals acknowledge our admiration for killing.

Now, nuclear war offers the opportunity to kill on a historically unprecedented scale.  Not just mowing down a few hundred men with a machine-gun, but blowing up entire cities, by dropping nuclear weapons on them, and killing hundreds of millions!  This has such an enormous appeal, that surely it can't be resisted much longer.  The non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 seems bizarre and quite contrary to human nature.

Actually, I should rather say to "male" human nature.  Females are less obsessed with killing, as they have babies to nurture and bring up. So women probably wouldn't start a nuclear war.

213

Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Re: Why we fear the dark

« on: 29/10/2016 18:12:52 »

Thanks - the point about switching on the lights at night to deter burglars hadn't occurred to me.  But it makes sense.

Actually it reminds me of a very vaguely-remembered story, or perhaps a movie, something about a blind person who had a burglar or some person with nefarious intent in the house. And the blind person had switched off all the lights, thereby neutralising the sighted burglar's advantage, until a refrigerator door got opened in the kitchen, and the fridge's interior light shone out.

Does that ring a bell with anyone, I wonder?

214

General Science / Re: Could humanity survive a nuclear war?

« on: 29/10/2016 17:26:33 »

Please point to the fruit-loops in reply #12.

What disturbed me in your reply#12, was your reference to: "scum encouraged to try a bigger bang......religious vermin".
And in your earlier#3: "morons who listen to priests, politicians and philosophers".

Using terms like "scum", "vermin" and ""morons", does sound indicative of a kind of intemperance of attitude, which is associated with the fruit-loop crowd.

That's all I was getting at.  I just wish you wouldn't use such terms, as IMHO, they spoil your otherwise excellent and admirable posts. No offensive intended!

215

Physiology & Medicine / Re: If charities ae doing drug research why are drugs so expensive?

« on: 27/10/2016 01:57:10 »

Do we need all these "drugs" anyway, like EpiPen and Daraprim,  These names sound very contrived, as if the manufacturers made them up, just to fool people into paying money for them.

Do they really contain anything necessary for human health.  Can't we get by without them, or are they the modern equivalent of the old "SnakeOil".

I suppose they might appear to work in some cases, but couldn't that be due to simple placebo-effect, rather than anything in the actual ingredients.

216

Chemistry / Re: Why do we add elements to the periodic table that decay instantly?

« on: 27/10/2016 01:10:25 »

How far could the Periodic Table be extended, if we allowed all possible combinations of protons, electrons and neutrons to be included?

Would it have hundreds of "elements"?

217

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is space elastic?

« on: 27/10/2016 01:03:02 »

Isn't there a variant of "Godwin's Law" operating here, ie  - the longer the discussion goes on, someone will eventually mention "Dark Energy"

218

General Science / Re: Could humanity survive a nuclear war?

« on: 27/10/2016 00:43:21 »

Alan, I like your style.  A perfect blend of solid fact, and outrageous swivel-eyed fruit-loopery.

That's meant  as a compliment, by the way. Well, partially.

219

Physiology & Medicine / Re: If charities ae doing drug research why are drugs so expensive?

« on: 27/10/2016 00:14:29 »

I get lots of letters from "charities", asking me to send them some money.

But I throw the letters away, because I think that my money would most likely end up not in any "charity", but only in the pockets of the people who are sending out the letters.

Am I being too cynical?

220

General Science / Re: Could humanity survive a nuclear war?

« on: 26/10/2016 22:30:49 »

You and Einstein are too pessimistic.

World War IV might not be fought with with sophisticated weapons like ICBMS. But surely guns would still be around, even if they were only flintlock muskets.

A primitive retrogression to "sticks and stones" might take a few World Wars longer, don't you think?