Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A fluid is a fluid is a fluid; a solid is a solid is a solid is a condensate is a solid.....

Can you tell me the difference between a fluid and a liquid? What's the difference between a liquid and a gas? What is a supercritical fluid?

Ha! I guess I caught you off your game and behind the curve. According to wikipedia:

Ununtrium is the temporary name of a chemical element with the temporary symbol Uut and atomic number 113. Also known as eka-thallium or simply element 113, is an extremely radioactive synthetic element (an element that can be created in a laboratory but is not found in nature); the most stable known isotope, ununtrium-286, has a half-life of 20 seconds. Ununtrium was first created in 2003 by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium

As I originally stated, it hasn't been formally recognized yet. BTW: I notice you ignored the example I actually gave of Uus. Why is that?

But would Vandal ever admit a mistake? Not likely.

1- I did admit to making a mistake earlier in this very thread.

2- You didn't catch me in a mistake. You didn't understand what I meant when I said that only 114 have been formally recognized.

3- A new element isn't considered discovered until multiple labs have repeated the synthesis and IUPAC formally agrees to accept their results and designate the actual name and symbol for the element. Element 113 is likely to be the next element added but that hasn't happened yet. As I accurately pointed out because I'm not faking my knowledge of chemistry.

But you still find time just to throw insults at people.

I'm finding it harder and harder to recognize you as people. Especially since you are singular and people is plural. [/snark]

Trashed a scientist's work? I'm not so sure about that one.

You quote mine. You misrepresent. You lie about their work.

The fiercesome foursome of atheism maybe: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins.

One of those wasn't even a scientist. Of course since you don't understand what science is, we can hardly expect you to know the difference between a journalist and a scientist.

So what? Don't ionized gases behave the same way as gases in general?

No. Do you really not understand what a plasma cutting torch is? Place a gas inside a light bulb and it will explode. Create a plasma inside a fluorescent bulb and you get high efficiency light.

So you admit that what we see is energy, as I said. (no, you won't admit I was right).

Seeing always involves energy. Looking at a painting involves your retina absorbing photons.

OK, unless it does.

If you use completely different meanings for the same words, then in fact, it doesn't.

The energy released by the Sun is not energy, then?

The source of the energy is not a fire.

But the fire happens, and that changes things.

No it doesn't. Those changes can occur without a fire. The same net reaction occurs inside our bodies, at a slower rate, as cellular respiration without a fire.

The fire is the result of the changes.

No I don't. Your theory of my (or others') behavior is just an excuse to insult someone. You are mean-spirited, defensive, and unwilling to conduct an honest dialogue.

Says the guy who routinely claims that I and others are on his ignore list.

Your comments typically don't provide any information. When they sometimes do, it is information circumscribed within your dogma. But it might be correct within those limits.

In other words, when it comes to the science I understand it better than you.

No, I have done both myself. But you refer to new age authors as booksellers; that is as inaccurate as anything you say I have said. A "bookseller" only sells books; new age authors (or others you might label as new age) also write books.

But you keep presenting these people as researchers when in fact they make their living by selling books, not research. They are book sellers.

Translation: they don't fully subscribe to your dogma about the only true source of knowledge; the way, the truth and the life.

New Age pablum that means nothing.

You're wrong again, as usual. The double-slit experiment is less than 100 years old.

Wave-particle duality was established in 1905 by Einstein's paper on the photo-electric effect, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Max Planck posited the quantum hypothesis in 1900.

Neils Bohr's model of the atom, including quantum leaps, was published in 1913.

The two-slit experiment was formulated later but was built upon science that had been around for decades.

I can't find a precise date for one experiment off-hand, but quantum theories were developed in the 1920s. Further experiments in the 1960s until today have demonstrated non-locality and quantum-entanglement; ideas popular with new agers, but nevertheless the work of scientists.

The ideas are popular with New Agers because they don't really understand them the way scientists do (observer effect). The New Agers like to claim that the science confirms their beliefs but it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ha! I guess I caught you off your game and behind the curve. According to wikipedia:

Ununtrium is the temporary name of a chemical element with the temporary symbol Uut and atomic number 113. Also known as eka-thallium or simply element 113, is an extremely radioactive synthetic element (an element that can be created in a laboratory but is not found in nature); the most stable known isotope, ununtrium-286, has a half-life of 20 seconds. Ununtrium was first created in 2003 by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununtrium

But would Vandal ever admit a mistake? Not likely.

He didn't make a mistake. Read full article, Eric. "...Ununtrium is the lightest element that has not yet received an official name. ". IUPAC hasn't given it an official name yet.

But you still find time just to throw insults at people.

Pot ... kettle black.

Trashed a scientist's work? I'm not so sure about that one. The fiercesome foursome of atheism maybe: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins.

I don't know shit about that stuff, pass.

So what? Don't ionized gases behave the same way as gases in general?

No. "Ionized" means some of the outer electrons have been knocked off. One example is the ozone layer. UV light ionizes diatomic oxygen to produce 2 oxygen atoms minus 1 electron [O.] These 2 then react with 2 ordinary O2 molecules to produce ozone.

So you admit that what we see is energy, as I said. (no, you won't admit I was right).

Not to put words in his mouth, I think he's stating "the results of released chemical energy". Now if Eric has some sort of mutation that allows him to see in the infrared, then that would be different. For example, those sulfur + metal reactions. If we take the following:

Al + S -> Al²S³ + heat , the hidden part is there's a transfer of 3 electrons per aluminum atom with sulfur accepting 2 electrons. Both atoms achieve the octect rule of a complete outer shell of electrons. The heat is sufficient in this case to strip electrons from surrounding atoms + the sulfur and aluminum atoms which get ionized anyway since they are the reactants. The product is aluminum sulfide.

The energy released by the Sun is not energy, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton...chain_reaction

You're wrong again, as usual. The double-slit experiment is less than 100 years old. I can't find a precise date for one experiment off-hand, but quantum theories were developed in the 1920s. Further experiments in the 1960s until today have demonstrated non-locality and quantum-entanglement; ideas popular with new agers, but nevertheless the work of scientists.

Phenomena like OBE and precognition may well exist Eric. However science isn't the proper tool to use. After all I've experienced precognition, but I really can't control when it happens. Since I can't mentally force when it happens, I can't use science. I can always get sulfur and aluminum powder and spark it to see what happens. That is why I can use science for the latter.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Smoke in ancient terms would seem to be a combo of gas and solid with some fiery sparks.

Those aren't the ancient terms you claimed the ancients used.

You say a flame is essentially a hot gas. And yet gas that isn't a fire (or else a solid, or a liquid, that isn't a fire) often erupts into flame when it's heated up to the right temperature,

No. No. No. Did you ever take a single chemistry class in your life? Ever?

Take a sample of pure oxygen gas and heat it up as much as you want. It will never "erupt into flame". It will eventually ionize into a plasma but that isn't a flame.

just as liquid evaporates into a gas when heated up,

Actually, I can get a liquid to boil without heating it up at all. I do it as a demo in my chemistry classes every year.

and a solid melts into liquid when heated up.

You can do it without heating it up as well.

Seems like a "state of matter" to me. As my source said, heat is the driving factor in the shift between the states, and fire emits the heat.

Yeah. Your source is wrong.

What in your world view explains just why these states of matter occur; these 4, and no others,

There are more than four states of matter.

and with shifts just at particular temperatures?

What temperature does water boil at in San Francisco? What temperature does it boil at here in the Treasure Valley of Idaho? Why are those temperatures different?

What temperature does water freeze at? What temperature does it freeze at if you dissolve salt in it?

Face it. You don't have the foggiest understanding about the topic at hand.

Seems mysterious and archetypal to me.

Because you are an uneducated fruitbat.

That is: explained by the formal qualities, not by physical properties. You can say that water will boil at 212 degrees, but why at that degree and not others?

It does boil at others. I routinely boil water at 72 degrees in my classroom.

Why are there four states, with these 4 qualities, and a shift at a particular temperature, while at most temperatures there is no shift?

You haven't got a clue.

You think your physics explains these things, and thus takes the wonder out of Nature.

Physics does explain these things.

You say my awareness of wonder in Nature is only ignorance. I understand that what I say means not a whit to you. But for me, the wonder and miracle of life and nature is still there, and the mystery is still there. Your physics does not take it away, not because I don't understand it, but because it really doesn't explain very much.

"The tides roll in. The tides roll out. You can't explain that." - Bill O'Reilly

You really are in great company in your ignorance.

Why do you post on a site based on a work that says that the 4 states of matter are archetypes, and that these archetypes are the basis for the 4 generation archetypes?

Tell me again where S and H equate generational archetypes with states of matter. Then show me that they are making the claim and not just describing the views the ancients had about generations.

So "energy" is released in the form of light.

Yes. Light is one form of energy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What did I make up?

Dodecahedron corresponds to the fifth element, which you completely deny.

It's not on the table that you claimed supported your view.

My

book???!!! lol

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

He didn't make a mistake. Read full article, Eric. "...Ununtrium is the lightest element that has not yet received an official name. ". IUPAC hasn't given it an official name yet.

Come on Rags, you know better than that.

Pot ... kettle black.

No

No. "Ionized" means some of the outer electrons have been knocked off. One example is the ozone layer. UV light ionizes diatomic oxygen to produce 2 oxygen atoms minus 1 electron [O.] These 2 then react with 2 ordinary O2 molecules to produce ozone.

Typical; you didn't understand my question. Ozone is still a gas.

Not to put words in his mouth, I think he's stating "the results of released chemical energy". Now if Eric has some sort of mutation that allows him to see in the infrared, then that would be different. For example, those sulfur + metal reactions. If we take the following:

Al + S -> Al²S³ + heat , the hidden part is there's a transfer of 3 electrons per aluminum atom with sulfur accepting 2 electrons. Both atoms achieve the octect rule of a complete outer shell of electrons. The heat is sufficient in this case to strip electrons from surrounding atoms + the sulfur and aluminum atoms which get ionized anyway since they are the reactants. The product is aluminum sulfide.

SO? What does a flame consist of? Is fire, energy?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton...chain_reaction

Phenomena like OBE and precognition may well exist Eric. However science isn't the proper tool to use. After all I've experienced precognition, but I really can't control when it happens. Since I can't mentally force when it happens, I can't use science. I can always get sulfur and aluminum powder and spark it to see what happens. That is why I can use science for the latter.

Vandal insists on physical data to prove the unphysical. Impossible. But if you actually visited the site I posted earlier (which Brian Rush actually linked first), you can see that circumstantial evidence exists for out-of-body experiences after death. All kinds of psychic phenomena have been tested. If you watched the videos I posted, you'd see that. Maybe you can't control some of this, but others can, and people working together using scientific protocols can investigate other people having these experiences and extra-sensory perceptions. That's called parapsychology. The problem is that militant skeptics like Vandal just dismiss it and all the evidence they gather, because it conflicts with their dogma. That is exactly what is happening. It is not me saying so to insult Vandal; it is the fact.

Vandal and his ilk really DO steal your soul. They claim to be useful, but at what price? The devil's price.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Those aren't the ancient terms you claimed the ancients used.

Of course they are.

No. No. No. Did you ever take a single chemistry class in your life? Ever?

Take a sample of pure oxygen gas and heat it up as much as you want. It will never "erupt into flame". It will eventually ionize into a plasma but that isn't a flame.

Now you are claiming that NO gases never burn. You sure you want to claim this?

Sure, under different conditions liquids can boil at different temperatures. So? Why are there 4 states, and no others? (3 usually admitted; and a fourth obvious from Einstein's theory) Just take H2O. Why is it solid no matter what the circumstances, solid the same way, until at a particular point (usually 32o F) it becomes liquid, and in the same liquid state until (usually) it reaches 212 F, and evaporates into steam, and stays steam no matter how hot it gets (I know steam won't burn because it already contains an oxidizing agent; but other gases will burn). Go ahead, continue to ignore my point.

Read The Fourth Turning and then you'll see my point about archetypes, ancient elements and generations.

Have you ever commented about the topic of this forum? Or are you here just to prove how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is, because they don't agree with you?

Yes. Light is one form of energy.

Finally, some sense. So what other forms are there?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

It's not on the table that you claimed supported your view.

[I]

The table obviously supported my view. The states of matter and the ancient elements were listed as the same thing. That was my point. I don't know why some people can't see how dishonest you are, vandal.

Usually, people are too materialist (like you) to even mention the fifth element, which is consciousness. Dodecahedron represents that fifth element (which Plotinus later named Spirit) among the 5 Platonic solids. Plato said it arranged the stars in heaven, which probably referred to the zodiac of 12 signs.

Of course, the Platonic "solids" are not really the 5 states of matter, are not really solid, and those are not elements in modern terms. But to folks like me, it is still interesting that there are exactly 5 Platonic mathematical forms, and no others, and symbolically they resembled the 5 states of matter enough so that Plato could describe them as such.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Can you tell me the difference between a fluid and a liquid? What's the difference between a liquid and a gas? What is a supercritical fluid?

There is no difference between a fluid and a liquid as far as the nature of the state of matter called water is concerned. No, I don't know what a supercritical fluid is.

"Unlike a solid, a gas has no fixed shape and will take on the shape of the space available. Unlike a liquid, the intermolecular forces are very small; it has no fixed volume and will expand to fill the space available."

2- You didn't catch me in a mistake. You didn't understand what I meant when I said that only 114 have been formally recognized.

Somebody made it in a lab, for crying sakes. And you said "discovered," not "formally recognized" by some officials. This is why you are President of the Global Nitpick Club. No-one is capable of making nitpicks better than you, and nitpickers are particularly irritating to me.

You quote mine. You misrepresent. You lie about their work.

I do not do any of those things, and you haven't mentioned any scientist whose work I trashed. That would mean I insulted or dismissed it, not that I "misrepresent." That is something else. That's what's so greatly irritating about you. You play fast and loose with words, and then demand precision with your science terms, and the other words that you profess your dogma with.

I said you insult people because I am far from the only one you insult. You insult everybody here.

One of those wasn't even a scientist. Of course since you don't understand what science is, we can hardly expect you to know the difference between a journalist and a scientist.

But I do know whom I trashed and whom I didn't, and I didn't claim they were scientists. You just made that up in the above sentence. What dishonesty; you really do take the cake.

No. Do you really not understand what a plasma cutting torch is? Place a gas inside a light bulb and it will explode. Create a plasma inside a fluorescent bulb and you get high efficiency light.

Lots of different gases behave in different ways.

The fire is the result of the changes.

You heat something up with fire, and it changes that something.

But you keep presenting these people as researchers when in fact they make their living by selling books, not research. They are book sellers.

No, they write books. They research them.

New Age pablum that means nothing.

Nothing means anything to you that is not proven in a science experiment. In the real world, lots of other things are meaningful.

Wave-particle duality was established in 1905 by Einstein's paper on the photo-electric effect, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Max Planck posited the quantum hypothesis in 1900.

Neils Bohr's model of the atom, including quantum leaps, was published in 1913.

The two-slit experiment was formulated later but was built upon science that had been around for decades.

And experiments continue, and theories change, and new agers comment on them; not on Neils Bohr's atomic theory or the photo-electric effect.

The ideas are popular with New Agers because they don't really understand them the way scientists do (observer effect). The New Agers like to claim that the science confirms their beliefs but it doesn't.

Science has destroyed your dogma, but you hold onto it despite all the facts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is no difference between a fluid and a liquid as far as the nature of the state of matter called water is concerned.

Got it. You don't know that liquid is a type of fluid as are gas and plasma.

No, I don't know what a supercritical fluid is.

But you are 100% certain that there are only four states of matter despite not knowing about other states discovered by scientists?

You are a deluded pretender.

"Unlike a solid, a gas has no fixed shape and will take on the shape of the space available. Unlike a liquid, the intermolecular forces are very small; it has no fixed volume and will expand to fill the space available."

Hey fruitbat, I didn't ask you about the difference between a gas and a solid. You are so ignorant about this topic that you can't even quote the words of others correctly.

Somebody made it in a lab, for crying sakes. And you said "discovered," not "formally recognized" by some officials.

Go back to my original statement: No. There are only 114 formally recognized with one or two more potentially going to be added in the next few years.

This was stated in response to your claim that there are 118 known elements. There aren't. Even if you include the couple that have had initial discovery results but not formal recognition, there still aren't 118.

This is why you are President of the Global Nitpick Club. No-one is capable of making nitpicks better than you, and nitpickers are particularly irritating to me.

That's because the "nits" that others pick happen to be evidence that you are only pretending to understand stuff or you are outright lying about things.

I do not do any of those things,

I have already shown you doing this several times. You called it "nitpicking".

and you haven't mentioned any scientist whose work I trashed.

You trash and denigrate the work done by all scientists when you distort their work to make it resemble "evidence" for your personal wishes about the universe.

That would mean I insulted or dismissed it, not that I "misrepresent."

Intentionally misrepresenting something! like a quote mine, is deeply insulting. You claim to be insulted when others misrepresent your views don't you?

That is something else. That's what's so greatly irritating about you. You play fast and loose with words, and then demand precision with your science terms, and the other words that you profess your dogma with.

I said you insult people because I am far from the only one you insult. You insult everybody here.

You claiming to speak for everyone here now? I seriously doubt that is an accurate statement.

But I do know whom I trashed and whom I didn't, and I didn't claim they were scientists.

Yes, you did. Everyone can go back and see your actual words. It's plain as day.

You just made that up in the above sentence. What dishonesty; you really do take the cake.

Says the dissembling liar.

Lots of different gases behave in different ways.

That has nothing to do with the fact that plasmas aren't gases.

You heat something up with fire, and it changes that something.

Now you are trying to change the topic because it is obvious that you were wrong. You said the fire caused the changes when something is burning. That isn't true.

The fact that we can use heat as a source of activation energy to initiate certain chemical reactions is a completely different topic.

BTW: There are many ways to heat things without using fire at all.

No, they write books. They research them.

Reading and then regurgitating what other New Agers have written is not research. You really, really are anti-Enlightenment aren't you!

Nothing means anything to you that is not proven in a science experiment. In the real world, lots of other things are meaningful.

Nice strawman. Are you going to present any actual, objective evidence for your claims or not?

And experiments continue, and theories change, and new agers comment on them; not on Neils Bohr's atomic theory or the photo-electric effect.

So no admission that your representation of quantum theory being less than 100-years-old was wrong?

Science has destroyed your dogma, but you hold onto it despite all the facts.

Says the guy who has repeatedly been shown to not know the first damn thing about the most basic of scientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The table obviously supported my view. The states of matter and the ancient elements were listed as the same thing. That was my point. I don't know why some people can't see how dishonest you are, vandal.

Because I correctly pointed out that the table did not include one of the platonic solids. Why not? Why was that particular solid omitted?

It's because the author wanted there to be a fit between ancient elements and the Platonic solids despite there being four and five in each set respectively. That's a clue showing that the entire fit is just arbitrarily made up.

Usually, people are too materialist (like you) to even mention the fifth element, which is consciousness. Dodecahedron represents that fifth element (which Plotinus later named Spirit) among the 5 Platonic solids. Plato said it arranged the stars in heaven, which probably referred to the zodiac of 12 signs.

How come your source, that you repeatedly claimed supports your view, didn't include it on the list?

Of course, the Platonic "solids" are not really the 5 states of matter,

Hold on. You have repeatedly stated in this thread that there are only four states of matter. Which is it, four or five?

are not really solid, and those are not elements in modern terms. But to folks like me, it is still interesting that there are exactly 5 Platonic mathematical forms, and no others, and symbolically they resembled the 5 states of matter enough so that Plato could describe them as such.

Symbolically? In other words it is all arbitrarily made up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course they are.

No they aren't.

Now you are claiming that NO gases never burn. You sure you want to claim this?

Yes. Because I know what the term "burn" actually means.

Note: I said a sample of pure oxygen. Not a mixture including some reducing agent. A pure compound when heated may decompose or change states but it won't burn because burning is a chemical reaction between two different compounds.

Stupid fruitbat.

Sure, under different conditions liquids can boil at different temperatures. So?

You just said that didn't happen. You can't even keep your lies straight.

Why are there 4 states, and no others?

Hold on. You said there are five in another post. Which is it?

(3 usually admitted; and a fourth obvious from Einstein's theory) Just take H2O. Why is it solid no matter what the circumstances,

Except you are about to list some circumstances where it isn't a solid.

solid the same way, until at a particular point (usually 32o F) it becomes liquid, and in the same liquid state until (usually) it reaches 212 F, and evaporates into steam,

Boiling water is not evaporating. It is vaporizing. Those are not the same thing.

and stays steam no matter how hot it gets (I know steam won't burn because it already contains an oxidizing agent; but other gases will burn).

No, they won't. See above.

Go ahead, continue to ignore my point.

Your point was nonsensical and flat out wrong.

If you really want to understand why substances are in particular states under various conditions why not do a little learning about intermolecular forces, temperature and pressure?

Read The Fourth Turning and then you'll see my point about archetypes, ancient elements and generations.

I have. In fact, I gave several of my graduating seniors copies of the book as gifts this year.

It does not say what you claim it says.

Have you ever commented about the topic of this forum?

On occasion.

Or are you here just to prove how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is, because they don't agree with you?

No. I'm just pointing out that you are lying about the science that you claim supports your view. Others have pointed out when you lie about history, sociology or politics. I'm not conversant enough in those other topics to be sure. But when it comes to science, I can spot a pretender a mile away. It's actually part of my day job as a teacher to know when a student is only faking his or her understanding of a topic.

Finally, some sense. So what other forms are there?

Why not do some actual learning on your own.

energy

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Got it. You don't know that liquid is a type of fluid as are gas and plasma.

Why do you call gases and plasma "fluids" if fluid is a synonym for liquid in normal speech?

I speak English; you speak scientese. Communication is difficult. Fluid means it flows. We usually speak of water as flowing, not gases. But in physics fluid can also mean gases.

flu·id
ˈflo͞oid/Submit
noun
1.
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (especially) a liquid.
"we all need several glasses of fluid a day"
synonyms: liquid, watery substance, solution
antonyms: solid
adjective
adjective: fluid
1.
(of a substance) able to flow easily.
"the paint is more fluid than tube watercolors"
synonyms: free-flowing
https://www.google.com/search?q=flui...the+word+fluid

But you are 100% certain that there are only four states of matter despite not knowing about other states discovered by scientists?

You are a deluded pretender.

To quote the wikipedia page you linked earlier,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter
"Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Many other states are known such as Bose–Einstein condensates and neutron-degenerate matter but these only occur in extreme situations such as ultra cold or ultra dense matter."

Hey fruitbat, I didn't ask you about the difference between a gas and a solid. You are so ignorant about this topic that you can't even quote the words of others correctly.

But that's what I am asking you about.

Go back to my original statement: No. There are only 114 formally recognized with one or two more potentially going to be added in the next few years.

This was stated in response to your claim that there are 118 known elements. There aren't. Even if you include the couple that have had initial discovery results but not formal recognition, there still aren't 118.

OK, if you change your statement to "formal recognition"

You trash and denigrate the work done by all scientists when you distort their work to make it resemble "evidence" for your personal wishes about the universe.

I don't distort their work; you ignore their work.

Intentionally misrepresenting something! like a quote mine, is deeply insulting. You claim to be insulted when others misrepresent your views don't you?

I don't quote mine.

You claiming to speak for everyone here now? I seriously doubt that is an accurate statement.

You insult people who disagree with you here.

Yes, you did. Everyone can go back and see your actual words. It's plain as day.

It's plain as day I did not call them scientists; I called them atheists.

That has nothing to do with the fact that plasmas aren't gases.

My contention is that plasma is not really a "state of matter," but that's what materialist scientists say.

Now you are trying to change the topic because it is obvious that you were wrong. You said the fire caused the changes when something is burning. That isn't true.

The fact that we can use heat as a source of activation energy to initiate certain chemical reactions is a completely different topic.

But it's what I said and what I was talking about all along. You changed my words so you could "disprove them." You quote mined and you lied.

BTW: There are many ways to heat things without using fire at all.

But don't they involve chemical reactions, which is what you say releases fire?

Reading and then regurgitating what other New Agers have written is not research. You really, really are anti-Enlightenment aren't you!

Misrepresenting what new agers do is as bad as you claim misrepresenting what scientists do is. You do it; I don't.

Nice strawman. Are you going to present any actual, objective evidence for your claims or not?

What evidence are you looking for? For what claims?

So no admission that your representation of quantum theory being less than 100-years-old was wrong?

I represented no such thing. You are the one who brought up the 100-year figure, and said new agers are going back 100 years for their cutting edge science. I mentioned that they are also using more-recent developments in it, and you ignored that fact.

Says the guy who has repeatedly been shown to not know the first damn thing about the most basic of scientific knowledge.

Insult rather than answer points. That is your only modus operandi. It's getting very tiresome as usual. I will shut down this nonsense soon too.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Because I correctly pointed out that the table did not include one of the platonic solids. Why not? Why was that particular solid omitted?

It's because the author wanted there to be a fit between ancient elements and the Platonic solids despite there being four and five in each set respectively. That's a clue showing that the entire fit is just arbitrarily made up.

Not at all. The fifth element is spirit. But physics people commonly ignore that element, so the author did not mention it in his correlation between the four states of matter known in physics and the four ancient "physical" elements fire, earth, air and water.

How come your source, that you repeatedly claimed supports your view, didn't include it on the list?

For the reason I stated above.

Here's the full quote:
The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron. He says simply "God used this solid for the whole universe, embroidering figures on it". So, I suppose it's a good thing that the right triangles comprising this quintessence are incommensurate with those of the other four elements, since we certainly wouldn't want the quintessence of the universe to start transmuting into the baser substances contained within itself!

Timaeus contains a very detailed discussion of virtually all aspects of physical existence, including biology, cosmology, geography, chemistry, physics, psychological perceptions, etc., all expressed in terms of these four basic elements and their transmutations from one into another by means of the constituent triangles being broken apart and re-assembled into other forms. Overall it's a very interesting and impressive theory, and strikingly similar in its combinatorial (and numerological) aspects to some modern speculative "theories of everything", as well as expressing ideas that have obvious counterparts in the modern theory of chemistry and the period table of elements, and so on.

Timaeus concludes

And so now we may say that our account of the universe has reached its conclusion. This world of ours has received and teems with living things, mortal and immortal. A visible living thing containing visible things, and a perceptible God, the image of the intelligible Living Thing. Its grandness, goodness, beauty and perfection are unexcelled. Our one universe, indeed, the only one of its kind, has come to be.

The speculative details of Plato's "account of the universe" are not very satisfactory from the modern point of view, but there's no doubt that - at least in its scope and ambition as an attempt to represent "all that is" in terms of a small number of simple mathematical operations - Plato's "theory of everything" left a lasting impression on Western science.
(unquote)

Hold on. You have repeatedly stated in this thread that there are only four states of matter. Which is it, four or five?

Refer to above.

Symbolically? In other words it is all arbitrarily made up.

According to your dogma that only what is empirically-demonstrated is true, yes. But in the real world, people understand things in other ways, and they do more things than putter around in laboratories.

I'll let the other series stand for now. We are not communicating, as usual.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Come on Rags, you know better than that.

No, you should know better. You posted a Wiki article and didn't bother reading stuff that fucked with your world view. I mean seriously, grow up , man up, and admit when you've erred.

Typical; you didn't understand my question. Ozone is still a gas.

1. I did understand the question and provided a detailed example
2. How about if I just do : 3O² [UV] -> 2O³
3. O² and O³ , yes are gases. For precision sake, I mentioned O. radicals.

SO? What does a flame consist of? Is fire, energy?

It depends on the amount of heat released in the reaction producing the flame. The flame can be anything from gas to plasma, or a mix of gas molecules, radicals, and plasma. Energy per se isn't involved.

Vandal insists on physical data to prove the unphysical. Impossible. But if you actually visited the site I posted earlier (which Brian Rush actually linked first), you can see that circumstantial evidence exists for out-of-body experiences after death. All kinds of psychic phenomena have been tested. If you watched the videos I posted, you'd see that. Maybe you can't control some of this, but others can, and people working together using scientific protocols can investigate other people having these experiences and extra-sensory perceptions. That's called parapsychology.

1. Since I've experienced "precognition", then sure, I can't dismiss it.
2. If folks have ESP, then could they not do a simple thing like predict what 5 cards will show up on the board on an online poker site? They'd know exactly which hands to play since they'd know ahead of time they'd win. That would be a workable experiment, right? The controls would try to guess the 5 cards and be correct withing statistical bounds. Likewise, your ESP endowed test group would also have a result with what should be a much better hit rate than the controls. You'd do this same experiment some number of times to ensure the elimination of latent bias. That's how science is done. The most important thing is to systematically eliminate bias first and make sure you document this! I'll admit I haven't seen the vids you provided yet. 'll do it. Now, if I hear something like "quantum entanglement exists, therefore ESP exists", I'll give that vid a dodo award. Statements like that abound within the realm of medical quackery all the time. Weight loss pill ads do that shit all of the time. The ads for those pills imply that the laws of thermo have been repealed. Calories [a measure of a food's energy content] just don't go off to the ether because you take a pill.

The problem is that militant skeptics like Vandal just dismiss it and all the evidence they gather, because it conflicts with their dogma. That is exactly what is happening. It is not me saying so to insult Vandal; it is the fact.

No. I think it's a matter of educational background. If you major in a hard science, the elimination of bias and the need to document your work get drilled in your head constantly, starting at grade school level.

Vandal and his ilk really DO steal your soul. They claim to be useful, but at what price? The devil's price.

I think it more of a generational thing. You present a facet of the 1960's era idealism and Vandal attacks it with snark because he perceives it as mush. I'm not really surprised at the more heat than light going on. You 2 display the extremes of y'alls archetypes.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why do you call gases and plasma "fluids" if fluid is a synonym for liquid in normal speech?

I thought you claimed to understand chemistry? Apparently that was a lie.

I speak English; you speak scientese. Communication is difficult. Fluid means it flows. We usually speak of water as flowing, not gases. But in physics fluid can also mean gases.

flu·id
ˈflo͞oid/Submit
noun
1.
a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to external pressure; a gas or (especially) a liquid.
"we all need several glasses of fluid a day"
synonyms: liquid, watery substance, solution
antonyms: solid
adjective
adjective: fluid
1.
(of a substance) able to flow easily.
"the paint is more fluid than tube watercolors"
synonyms: free-flowing
https://www.google.com/search?q=flui...the+word+fluid


To quote the wikipedia page you linked earlier,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter
"Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Many other states are known such as Bose–Einstein condensates and neutron-degenerate matter but these only occur in extreme situations such as ultra cold or ultra dense matter."

So. There are more than four phases of matter. And plasma is a state of matter despite all your claims to the contrary.

But that's what I am asking you about.

1- Then you didn't answer my questions, except to show that you don't know what a fluid is.

2- You didn't ask me anything. You just cut a quote out from Wikipedia I assume and posted it. That isn't a question.

OK, if you change your statement to "formal recognition"

As I showed you, I didn't change anything.

I don't distort their work; you ignore their work.

The evidence in this thread so far seems to indicate otherwise.

I don't quote mine.

Yes you do. You also present videos in support of your claims that use quote mines like I showed the Wigner quote to be.

You insult people who disagree with you here.

You said I insult everyone here. Now you are changing your claim. Do you ever do anything honestly?

It's plain as day I did not call them scientists; I called them atheists.

You listed them in response to me asking about scientists, not atheists. So either you didn't know one of them wasn't a scientist or you were engaging in a red herring fallacy. Which is it, ignorant or dishonest?

My contention is that plasma is not really a "state of matter," but that's what materialist scientists say.

Your contention is based on nothing more than what you wish was true.

But it's what I said and what I was talking about all along. You changed my words so you could "disprove them." You quote mined and you lied.

Don't use terms that you don't understand. I have not cut out one word of your statements. The context is all there.

But don't they involve chemical reactions, which is what you say releases fire?

No. For example magnetic induction can heat metals to very high temperature without any flames. Gases can be heated through pressurizing them.

Misrepresenting what new agers do is as bad as you claim misrepresenting what scientists do is. You do it; I don't.

So, you are claiming that New Agers don't make their living selling books? New Agers don't simply rewrite what others like Aristotle has written before them?

I've shown how you misrepresent the words of scientist all the time. Observer effect? Fluid?

What evidence are you looking for? For what claims?

Evidence of consciousness in an inanimate object to start with. You'll first need to define it in such a way that objective observers will be able of to identify its presence/absence or measure its amount.

I represented no such thing. You are the one who brought up the 100-year figure, and said new agers are going back 100 years for their cutting edge science.

New Agers, including the ones in the videos you linked into this thread, repeatedly claim that cutting edge science is revealing links to ancient ideas. I'm simply pointing out that the cutting edge science they are referring to is several generations old.

I mentioned that they are also using more-recent developments in it, and you ignored that fact.

No. All you talk about are ideas that are several decades old if not over a century old.

Insult rather than answer points.

I'm a big boy. I can do both.

That is your only modus operandi. It's getting very tiresome as usual. I will shut down this nonsense soon too.

Yeah. I've heard that claim before. It wasn't true then and it won't be true in the future. Your ego won't allow it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not at all. The fifth element is spirit. But physics people commonly ignore that element, so the author did not mention it in his correlation between the four states of matter known in physics and the four ancient "physical" elements fire, earth, air and water.

Is there any scientific research done wrt "spirit" ? The only spirits I know of are found at the local liquor store.

Here's the full quote:
The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron. He says simply "God used this solid for the whole universe, embroidering figures on it". So, I suppose it's a good thing that the right triangles comprising this quintessence are incommensurate with those of the other four elements, since we certainly wouldn't want the quintessence of the universe to start transmuting into the baser substances contained within itself!

OK, so we have a yet to be discovered particle known as a dodo-cahedron. This particle is thought to carry the force, quintessence.

Timaeus contains a very detailed discussion of virtually all aspects of physical existence, including biology, cosmology, geography, chemistry, physics, psychological perceptions, etc., all expressed in terms of these four basic elements and their transmutations from one into another by means of the constituent triangles being broken apart and re-assembled into other forms. Overall it's a very interesting and impressive theory, and strikingly similar in its combinatorial (and numerological) aspects to some modern speculative "theories of everything", as well as expressing ideas that have obvious counterparts in the modern theory of chemistry and the period table of elements, and so on.

There are "magic numbers". Can you find these someplace in your stuff?


https://oeis.org/A018226

Timaeus concludes

And so now we may say that our account of the universe has reached its conclusion. This world of ours has received and teems with living things, mortal and immortal. A visible living thing containing visible things, and a perceptible God, the image of the intelligible Living Thing. Its grandness, goodness, beauty and perfection are unexcelled. Our one universe, indeed, the only one of its kind, has come to be.

Methinks Timaeus has been using magic mushrooms here.

According to your dogma that only what is empirically-demonstrated is true, yes. But in the real world, people understand things in other ways, and they do more things than putter around in laboratories.

I'll let the other series stand for now. We are not communicating, as usual.

Yup. Think of science as a hammer. You need a screw driver. You know how it goes. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Is there any scientific research done wrt "spirit" ? The only spirits I know of are found at the local liquor store.

Institute of Noetic Sciences has done some research on these kinds of subjects. I and others have posted things here on previous pages about spirit contact and life after death. But I'm sure I could find more on the web, as could anyone. It is doubtless that someone with a materialist worldview would accept any such evidence, or indeed how empirical it might be.

OK, so we have a yet to be discovered particle known as a dodo-cahedron. This particle is thought to carry the force, quintessence.

Quintessence = Spirit (not "spirits" per se) = Consciousness = Cosmic Mind (referred to in the videos I posted). Have you watched them? (Vandal would not recommend them; that should be recommendation enough )

There are "magic numbers". Can you find these someplace in your stuff?

Certainly as part of my Bach essay. JSB was really into musical mathematics.

https://oeis.org/A018226

Not those numbers though; I didn't know that some nuclear numbers are more stable wrt nuclear decay. But 28 is considered the perfect number in pure mathematics.

Methinks Timaeus has been using magic mushrooms here.

You never know.

Yup. Think of science as a hammer. You need a screw driver. You know how it goes. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Where did I just hear that one?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

No, you should know better. You posted a Wiki article and didn't bother reading stuff that fucked with your world view. I mean seriously, grow up , man up, and admit when you've erred.

Come on, man. You merely said that the new elements had not received names. That doesn't mean anything. How many elements there are, means nothing to my worldview either, of course. Vandal first knocked my post saying only 114 elements had been discovered, not 118. When I showed that one of them had been created, then he said it had not been officially accepted by the right committee. OK then. Astronomers decide if Pluto is a planet, and some physicists decide if elements are formally recognized.

3. O² and O³ , yes are gases. For precision sake, I mentioned O. radicals.

Gases are a subject I am interested in in these discussions. Vandal is always liable to take them in directions I am not interested in, but allows him to show off how much more he knows than I do about "science."

It depends on the amount of heat released in the reaction producing the flame. The flame can be anything from gas to plasma, or a mix of gas molecules, radicals, and plasma. Energy per se isn't involved.

That might be a good point; food for thought. I can't see how a flame is in the state of gas, though. Gases disperse throughout any place where they are. Flames hold a shape, are based from a fuel source, and only rise. Gases don't do any of these things; they both rise and spread out horizontally and every which way. If "plasma" equals ionized atoms, but they are or can be gases, then plasma is not equal to the element fire or to any of the 5 ancient elements.

A state of matter must be exclusive to the other states in its behavior. If something behaves like a solid, then it is not some other exotic state of matter. If it behaves like a gas, then it is not a liquid or solid. Just some condition of atoms being ionized or not does not seem relevant to what is or isn't a "state of matter" in the ancient system. These days the chemists, having denied the connection to the old system, have started to use the term differently, apparently. So plasma and Bose-Einstein condensations/other rare and exotic states can also be called states of matter. But they are not like the old elements, or the modern states of matter as usually understood, because their behavior is not mutually exclusive to them, as far as I know, although I don't know much about these rare states.

My statement is that the states of matter are the old "elements" so-called; the name was changed to protect the innocent, as it were, but the story was true. The term element was re-applied to something else, once it became part of the new chemistry. It was then applied to what the term metal meant before, and most elements (but not all) are in fact metals. Perhaps the ancients such as Plato attributed some explanations of things to elements that are not now attributed to "states of matter."

1. Since I've experienced "precognition", then sure, I can't dismiss it.
2. If folks have ESP, then could they not do a simple thing like predict what 5 cards will show up on the board on an online poker site? They'd know exactly which hands to play since they'd know ahead of time they'd win. That would be a workable experiment, right? The controls would try to guess the 5 cards and be correct withing statistical bounds. Likewise, your ESP endowed test group would also have a result with what should be a much better hit rate than the controls. You'd do this same experiment some number of times to ensure the elimination of latent bias. That's how science is done. The most important thing is to systematically eliminate bias first and make sure you document this! I'll admit I haven't seen the vids you provided yet. 'll do it. Now, if I hear something like "quantum entanglement exists, therefore ESP exists", I'll give that vid a dodo award. Statements like that abound within the realm of medical quackery all the time. Weight loss pill ads do that shit all of the time. The ads for those pills imply that the laws of thermo have been repealed. Calories [a measure of a food's energy content] just don't go off to the ether because you take a pill.

Many experiments have been done. The Radin video is a good start. Quantum entanglement does not prove ESP; it just makes it more plausible.

No. I think it's a matter of educational background. If you major in a hard science, the elimination of bias and the need to document your work get drilled in your head constantly, starting at grade school level.

No, that's not what's going on. Elimination of bias is not what militant skeptics have accomplished. They have created bias. Vandal's statements are based on his worldview, which is detailed quite well in the Sheldrake videos, and of course I have known about these dogmas for decades and discussed them on this thread which I started and goes back at least 15 years. There is no evidence for these dogmas. They are assumptions from philosophy and religion. Any evidence presented to Vandal that conflicts with his worldview will be dismissed without any consideration.

He also insists that people use science terms in their precise meaning in science, even though most people are not scientists, or even science teachers like him. He forgets that words also refer to everyday experience. He is lost in his professional world; its worldview, its biases and its language.

And you don't major in subjects in grade school, silly.

I think it more of a generational thing. You present a facet of the 1960's era idealism and Vandal attacks it with snark because he perceives it as mush. I'm not really surprised at the more heat than light going on. You 2 display the extremes of y'alls archetypes.

There's probably something to that, although I don't think Vandal would cop to it.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Yes you do. You also present videos in support of your claims that use quote mines like I showed the Wigner quote to be.

That is not me quote mining. To claim that I said something, when it was the author of the video that said it, is quote mining on YOUR part.

You said I insult everyone here. Now you are changing your claim. Do you ever do anything honestly?

You disagree with everyone here, so no.

You listed them in response to me asking about scientists, not atheists. So either you didn't know one of them wasn't a scientist or you were engaging in a red herring fallacy. Which is it, ignorant or dishonest?

You are dishonest. And it's a trivial matter. So is just about everything you argue about. As far as I'm concerned, those 4 are/were philosophers. I pointed to them as people I might have trashed, or at least said were wrong. The point was, I have not trashed scientists per se. But go ahead, keep arguing.

No. For example magnetic induction can heat metals to very high temperature without any flames. Gases can be heated through pressurizing them.

OK, a statement with content from you; very rare.

So, you are claiming that New Agers don't make their living selling books? New Agers don't simply rewrite what others like Aristotle has written before them?

They write books about many subjects, with much research; mostly not about what Aristotle said, and mostly they are not physics books. New Agers (a broad term with a definition that is whatever you choose it to be) make their living doing many things; they may be counselors or therapists, for example, or they may create and/or sell art or sell crystals or conduct workshops, or be musicians, or may have other less-new-age jobs.

I've shown how you misrepresent the words of scientists all the time. Observer effect? Fluid?

You have not clarified the observer effect at all. My comments on your statements still stand, unanswered. I used the word fluid as a synonym for liquid, which was listed as a synonym in the dictionary.

Evidence of consciousness in an inanimate object to start with. You'll first need to define it in such a way that objective observers will be able to identify its presence/absence or measure its amount.

OK, I might look for more evidence, but what if consciousness can't be quantified in an "amount"?

According to Sheldrake, the idea that "matter is unconscious" was simply assumed by Descartes when he divided up the world. This I also knew from my own philosophy and science background. There was never any proof of this. So you have no evidence that inanimate objects are unconscious. (you have no evidence that animate objects are unconscious either, which your worldview also assumes). There has been evidence that plants are conscious, but you dismissed it. I imagine you would do the same with something like crystals, about which Sheldrake claims there is evidence that they learn things.

The world was assumed to be alive before Descartes, because that's how people experienced it. Scientific observation of this may be problematic if such observation requires that consciousness be defined as a material object, which is the opposite of what it is. That might be called begging the question.

New Agers, including the ones in the videos you linked into this thread, repeatedly claim that cutting edge science is revealing links to ancient ideas. I'm simply pointing out that the cutting edge science they are referring to is several generations old.

And I pointed out that it is also newer than that, as was stated clearly in the videos, and you repeatedly ignore this. And in any case, even quantum theory was virtually unknown among the public, and never taught in high school (and probably not in college either, I'm not sure) until the early 1970s. It was new age type folks who made it public, in fact; people like Capra whom your video refers to. So it has seemed "cutting edge," because most people had never heard of it until then. The old Newtonian and Lavoisier-type science was what was taught in my high school classes. Planck, Heisenberg, Einstein etc were never mentioned. Most people simply had no awareness of what was going on in modern physics. It is new to most people. It has been covered up because it explodes the worldview that you believe in. And now you just find some interpretation to deny it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Come on, man. You merely said that the new elements had not received names. That doesn't mean anything. How many elements there are, means nothing to my worldview either, of course. Vandal first knocked my post saying only 114 elements had been discovered, not 118. When I showed that one of them had been created, then he said it had not been officially accepted by the right committee. OK then.

OK, let's all agree to this.
1. There are 114 officially named elements courtesy of IUPAC.
2. There are 4 other elements that haven't been named yet due to a need to confirm their discovery to the satisfaction of IUPAC before they get the go ahead to receive a name. It's standard scientific protocol to test an outcome some number of times before acceptance.

Astronomers decide if Pluto is a planet, and some physicists decide if elements are formally recognized.

The above are normal scientific processes.

Gases are a subject I am interested in in these discussions. Vandal is always liable to take them in directions I am not interested in, but allows him to show off how much more he knows than I do about "science."

I'll leave it to him to reply.

That might be a good point; food for thought. I can't see how a flame is in the state of gas, though. Gases disperse throughout any place where they are. Flames hold a shape, are based from a fuel source, and only rise. Gases don't do any of these things; they both rise and spread out horizontally and every which way. If "plasma" equals ionized atoms, but they are or can be gases, then plasma is not equal to the element fire or to any of the 5 ancient elements.

1. A flame isn't really a "state" of a gas. I just said that flames may contain gases along with the other items. An example. Ordinary air contains argon atoms. Argon is a gas. A forest fire will contain argon gas by virtue of being in the earth's atmosphere. Argon is a very non reactive noble gas. In most cases it won't be ionized or combined with other substances.
2. Plasmaa: 4th fundamental state of matter.

A state of matter must be exclusive to the other states in its behavior. If something behaves like a solid, then it is not some other exotic state of matter. If it behaves like a gas, then it is not a liquid or solid. Just some condition of atoms being ionized or not does not seem relevant to what is or isn't a "state of matter" in the ancient system. These days the chemists, having denied the connection to the old system, have started to use the term differently, apparently. So plasma and Bose-Einstein condensations/other rare and exotic states can also be called states of matter. But they are not like the old elements, because their behavior is not mutually exclusive to them, as far as I know, although I don't know much about these rare states.

1. I just go by the book. 4 fundamental states of matter [solid, liquid, gas, plasma]
2. There indeed exists exotic matter, which include Bose-Einstein condensates, neutron degenerate matter, electron degenerate matter which our sun will become someday, and a shitpot of others.

My statement is that the states of matter are the old "elements" so-called; the name was changed to protect the innocent, as it were, but the story was true. The term element was re-applied to something else, once it became part of the new chemistry. It was then applied to what the term metal meant before, and most elements (but not all) are in fact metals. Perhaps the ancients such as Plato attributed some explanations of things to elements that are not now attributed to "states of matter."

1. Yes, most elements are metals. The halogens and chalcogen groups are mostly non-metals (group wise). Then you have metalloids which display an intermediate set of characteristics. They usually have metallic luster, but are brittle, etc.
2. For decruft. If we're discussing modern chemistry, the term "elements" is non symmetric. In modern chemistry, an element is defined by the number of protons an atom has. Hydrogen always has 1 proton, oxygen 8, fluorine 9, etc. The number of neutrons can vary, giving rise to isotopes. Oxygen has 3: O¹⁶, O¹⁷, O¹⁸ .

Many experiments have been done.

Like this?
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...014.00146/full
The report said some sort of measuring tool was needed. It's had to fully get something accurate without measuring it.

In Contrast.
http://www.medindia.net/news/chemica...e-137198-1.htm

In this case, still no tool, but the bromine deprived worms all died, while those that got bromine lived. The above report also states the precise mechanism of bromine's role.

That's probably the issue with "woo-woo". Woo-woo may indeed be valid, but it seems that research lacks precision. That's what drives your ordinary scientist "fruit bad shit crazy'.

No, that's not what's going on. Elimination of bias is not what militant skeptics have accomplished. They have created bias. Vandal's statements are based on his worldview, which is detailed quite well in the Sheldrake videos, and of course I have known about them for decades and discussed them on this thread which I started and goes back at least 15 years. There is no evidence for these dogmas. They are assumptions from philosophy and religion. Any evidence presented to Vandal that conflicts with his worldview will be dismissed without any consideration.

Yeah, I see he dishes out fruit bat awards to you.

He also insists that people use science terms in their precise meaning in science, even though most people are not scientists, or even science teachers like him. He forgets that words also refer to everyday experience. He is lost in his professional world; its worldview, its biases and its language.

Yeah, I know. That's what drives Eric fruit bat shit crazy.

And you don't major in subjects in grade school, silly.

I didn't say I did that. I said that's where I first started learning about the scientific method.

One award for the thread. Lot's of fruit bats.



There's probably something to that, although I don't think Vandal would cop to it.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

OK, let's all agree to this.
1. There are 114 officially named elements courtesy of IUPAC.
2. There are 4 other elements that haven't been named yet due to a need to confirm their discovery to the satisfaction of IUPAC before they get the go ahead to receive a name. It's standard scientific protocol to test an outcome some number of times before acceptance.

The above are normal scientific processes.

I suppose so; as in the case with Pluto it can be pretty arbitrary; I don't know what the case is with elements in that regard.

1. A flame isn't really a "state" of a gas. I just said that flames may contain gases along with the other items. An example. Ordinary air contains argon atoms. Argon is a gas. A forest fire will contain argon gas by virtue of being in the earth's atmosphere. Argon is a very non reactive noble gas. In most cases it won't be ionized or combined with other substances.

Strictly speaking, argon isn't a gas; it just behaves in that state. What elements or molecules a fire contains may be one question; but what is the behavior called "flame;" I'm not too clear on that. You, TnT and Vandal say it isn't energy, and I learned in high school (junior high school?) that fire is rapid oxidation, and Vandal was describing it in detail. It is the result of this release of energy from chemical bonds. But fire itself energizes and moves things in turn. It seems to me more like the process of release of energy. In a larger sense, it IS energy, but I know Gen Xers and vandals don't like larger senses.

In a larger sense too, 3 of the 4 fundamental forces are energy. One of them is electromagnetism, which is the same as the energy in chemical bonds you are talking about. The strong force holds atomic nuclei together, and is released in atomic energy. The weak force is radiation, in which radioactive elements decay. I don't know if gravity can be called energy or not, but what else would it be?

So there is this thing called "force," which when released, does "work" or "explodes into flames" etc. Scientists want to unify the 4 forces in a theory of everything (which won't be one). BUt isn't this force the same as the energy that Einstein said converts from matter when at high enough speed? Einstein's famous equation seems like a revision of Newton's. Force = mass times velocity (acceleration). Energy = mass at the speed of light squared (in a vacuum). Again, in a larger sense, by analogy. Maybe Einstein put his equation in that form to contrast it with Newton's.


More basic stuff about E=mc2

In one of Albert Einstein’s revolutionary scientific papers published in 1905, E=mc2 was introduced; where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Since then, E=mc2 has become one of the most famous equations in the world. Even people with no background in physics have at least heard of the equation and are aware of its prodigious influence on the world we live in. However, most people do not exactly know what the equation means. Read on after the jump to apply the equation using different techniques and attain a better understanding of E=mc2.

Know that the equation is simply about special relativity. Simply put, this equation tells us that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing. In the right condition, mass can turn into energy and energy can turn into mass. Here, ‘right condition’ refers to near-to-light-speed. Maybe, that is why we humans feel that it is difficult to perceive; because we are too slow in comparison to light. Light moves at a speed of roughly 670 million miles per hour, or approximately 186,282 miles per second.

http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-E%3Dmc2

2. Plasmaa: 4th fundamental state of matter.

1. I just go by the book. 4 fundamental states of matter [solid, liquid, gas, plasma]
2. There indeed exists exotic matter, which include Bose-Einstein condensates, neutron degenerate matter, electron degenerate matter which our sun will become someday, and a shitpot of others.

When I read "the book" there were only three. "Plasma" is a recent addition, and I'm not so clear on that. If plasma is sometimes or usually a gas, then it isn't a separate state of matter. It seems related to energy and fire because as brower pointed out things like lightning and fire and the sun contain plasma.

Like this?
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journ...014.00146/full
The report said some sort of measuring tool was needed. It's had to fully get something accurate without measuring it.

In Contrast.
http://www.medindia.net/news/chemica...e-137198-1.htm

In this case, still no tool, but the bromine deprived worms all died, while those that got bromine lived. The above report also states the precise mechanism of bromine's role.

That's probably the issue with "woo-woo". Woo-woo may indeed be valid, but it seems that research lacks precision. That's what drives your ordinary scientist "fruit bad shit crazy'.

As I said in my edit, look at Radin's video for examples of scientific study of ESP. Sheldrake has some other examples in his videos too. Radin put together a list of peer-reviewed experiments, but when I posted a link to it on wikipedia the other more-favored editors deleted it. I think this is it:

A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Parker2003.pdf

No, I think THIS was it:
http://noetic.org/research/psi-research/

The research may lack precision, or at least seem to, since the object of the research itself is not so easily made to appear precise. The object of study is not tangible materials. But I heard a report, from Sheldrake or somebody, that studies show that parapsychology studies are conducted with way more precision than other kinds.

Yeah, I see he dishes out fruit bat awards to you.

And gobbledygook awards. Mostly he does not really debate me, or discuss anything with me, but just calls me names or insults or denigrates me and my views, and often those of others here too. I don't see how anyone who does that, has any credibility. But I suppose my recent indulgence of his bad behavior might result in me clarifying for myself what scientists of his ilk have to say about things like states of matter.

According to Vandal, you and I are not experts; we are not science teachers. So how dare we have any opinion on the subjects he teaches? We should just feed out of the mouth of the teacher and shut up.

I once remember reading a book from my local library entitled The Nature Of Things: The Secret Life Of Inanimate Objects. The author of the book was Lyall Watson. It was an extremely fascinating book to say the very least. What this book basically suggests is that ALL matter -EVERYTHING- is endowed with SOME kind of 'life'. In this book, Watson explores the subtle forces of memory fields and suggests that matter has the capacity to absorb emotional “fingerprints”, the mental fossils that channel echoes from the past. He demonstrates the complexity of inanimate life and offers possible proof of our sensitivity to its minute, natural patterns of energy. Watson also makes a commendable effort to justify his astonishing claims through a variety of anecdotes about lost wedding rings suddenly finding their way back to their owners as if it is of their own accord, statues of 'holy' personages that apparently bleed and cry as well as places that seem to project noticeably 'sad' or 'happy' vibes whenever people enter them. Certainly, this concept of all-permeating life is not foreign to many religions of the East. The notion that 'divine consciousness' pervades each and every atom is common to many branches of the vast tree of Hindu philosophy. Similarly, some Buddhists believe that what they call the 'buddha nature' is not only sentient but also omnipresent as well. Even scientists studying quantum physics believe that there may exist a 'unified field' where matter, energy and consciousness are all one unified whole. Does it seem possible to you that matter, ALL matter, is conscious?
Read more: http://hauntedtavern.proboards.com/t...#ixzz34AgfeWx3

No more than "possible proof," but always interesting to consider.

Dr. Emoto's experiments. Skeptics say, maybe correctly, that some of them have not been duplicated by others, and very little follow-up research was done after his early research was debunked.

His original methods were not controlled enough. He selected out the best cases of crystals on an aesthetic basis, and tried to profit from his pseudoscience, this author wrote in 2005.
http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

But another controlled experiment was carried out by Institute of Noetic Sciences in 2006. Dr. Radin alluded in his videos and articles that this experiment was suppressed on wikipedia.
http://media.noetic.org/uploads/file...lind_water.pdf

And there are recent experiments with rice too:
http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/...around-us.html

But replication seems hard to come by on this one too.

The skeptical csicop claimed to disprove Emoto-type experiments.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...ce_experiment/

But this seems like a neutral site, although not professional scientists ("website designed partially for the 2008 BCSSA Technology Scholarship contest") ; and he got some good results.
http://www.all-water.org/Experiment.html

Can "matter" absorb "emotional fingerprints?" Does this mean inanimate objects are conscious on some level? Research is ongoing.

What I had discussed with Brian Rush before was that since atomic "particle" (or wave) behavior is uncertain and only probably knowable, this is the basis for the freedom and conscious free will that often becomes stronger in "animate" life as it evolves over the millennia.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I suppose so; as in the case with Pluto it can be pretty arbitrary; I don't know what the case is with elements in that regard.

I think in IUPAC's case, it's standard scientific protocol. When a claim that a new atom has been synthesized, that research is published. Next, other experiments are performed to ensure that process does indeed create the atom in question consistently. Once it's been established that the atom in question has been created in a number of "validation steps", then the atom is up for naming. Another hangup is of course politics as to which name should be chosen.

Strictly speaking, argon isn't a gas; it just behaves in that state.

Yes, my bad. Argon in my case is a gas when present in the troposphere. This is the same location as forest fires. Therefore argon in forest fires is in the gaseous state.

What elements or molecules a fire contains may be one question; but what is the behavior called "flame;" I'm not too clear on that. You, TnT and Vandal say it isn't energy, and I learned in high school (junior high school?) that fire is rapid oxidation,

A more proper statement would be that fire one manifestation of an extremely exothermic reaction. If we go back to the sulfur and aluminum reaction, yes, you get a fire. The heat is from the transfer of electrons from aluminum to sulfur with the creation of a product, aluminum sulfide salt.

and Vandal was describing it in detail. It is the result of this release of energy from chemical bonds. But fire itself energizes and moves things in turn.

It's the release of energy from the breaking and making of new chemical bonds that results in the release of energy. Again, fire is just a manifestation of that process. Your body does something similar all of the time. Food is reacted with oxygen to produce ATP, which in turn allows your muscles to move. That energy does a bunch of stuff as well, like make brain neurotransmitters and such as well.
It seems to me more like the process of release of energy. In a larger sense, it IS energy, but I know Gen Xers and vandals don't like larger senses.

In a larger sense too, 3 of the 4 fundamental forces are energy. One of them is electromagnetism, which is the same as the energy in chemical bonds you are talking about. The strong force holds atomic nuclei together, and is released in atomic energy. The weak force is radiation, in which radioactive elements decay. I don't know if gravity can be called energy or not, but what else would it be?

I don't think the above is what is actually what is going on.
1. Yes, the strong force binds atomic nuclei. I think the associated particle is a gluon, though I may be wrong.
2. Electromagnetism is the force involved with electric generation and electron shifts. The associated particle is the photon
3. Week force. I had to look this up. W/Z bosons are the particles.
4. Gravity. "Gravitron", not characterized , but theorized at present.

So there is this thing called "force," which when released, does "work" or "explodes into flames" etc. Scientists want to unify the 4 forces in a theory of everything (which won't be one). BUt isn't this force the same as the energy that Einstein said converts from matter when at high enough speed? Einstein's famous equation seems like a revision of Newton's. Force = mass times velocity (acceleration). Energy = mass at the speed of light squared (in a vacuum). Again, in a larger sense, by analogy. Maybe Einstein put his equation in that form to contrast it with Newton's.

Well, if you have 2 gamma rays of sufficient energy, sure you can convert those 2 photons to mass. Normally if they strike each other, you get an electron/positron pair. The positron is anti matter and will annihilate when it hits another electron.


More basic stuff about E=mc2

In one of Albert Einstein’s revolutionary scientific papers published in 1905, E=mc2 was introduced; where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. Since then, E=mc2 has become one of the most famous equations in the world. Even people with no background in physics have at least heard of the equation and are aware of its prodigious influence on the world we live in. However, most people do not exactly know what the equation means. Read on after the jump to apply the equation using different techniques and attain a better understanding of E=mc2.

Know that the equation is simply about special relativity. Simply put, this equation tells us that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing. In the right condition, mass can turn into energy and energy can turn into mass. Here, ‘right condition’ refers to near-to-light-speed. Maybe, that is why we humans feel that it is difficult to perceive; because we are too slow in comparison to light. Light moves at a speed of roughly 670 million miles per hour, or approximately 186,282 miles per second.

http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-E%3Dmc2


When I read "the book" there were only three. "Plasma" is a recent addition, and I'm not so clear on that. If plasma is sometimes or usually a gas, then it isn't a separate state of matter. It seems related to energy and fire because as brower pointed out things like lightning and fire and the sun contain plasma.

As per above, I showed how to do the reverse conversion energy to mass.

As I said in my edit, look at Radin's video for examples of scientific study of ESP. Sheldrake has some other examples in his videos too. Radin put together a list of peer-reviewed experiments, but when I posted a link to it on wikipedia the other more-favored editors deleted it. I think this is it:

A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Parker2003.pdf

No, I think THIS was it:
http://noetic.org/research/psi-research/

The research may lack precision, or at least seem to, since the object of the research itself is not so easily made to appear precise. The object of study is not tangible materials. But I heard a report, from Sheldrake or somebody, that studies show that parapsychology studies are conducted with way more precision than other kinds.
[/quote]

That's why they need screw drivers.

And gobbledygook awards. Mostly he does not really debate me, or discuss anything with me, but just calls me names or insults or denigrates me and my views, and often those of others here too. I don't see how anyone who does that, has any credibility. But I suppose my recent indulgence of his bad behavior might result in me clarifying for myself what scientists of his ilk have to say about things like states of matter.

Nawww. It's all generational. Vandal's Fluorine [GenX would be the non-metals] and you're cesium. [Boomers = metals]. Now when you 2 get too close together, an enormous exerthermic reaction occurs for all to see. I'm selenium.

According to Vandal, you and I are not experts; we are not science teachers. So how dare we have any opinion on the subjects he teaches? We should just feed out of the mouth of the teacher and shut up.

We should not feed out of Vanda'ls' mouth. Vandal has a specific biome in his mouth and that would make us sick.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think in IUPAC's case, it's standard scientific protocol. When a claim that a new atom has been synthesized, that research is published. Next, other experiments are performed to ensure that process does indeed create the atom in question consistently. Once it's been established that the atom in question has been created in a number of "validation steps", then the atom is up for naming. Another hangup is of course politics as to which name should be chosen.

According to the decision of those who "establish?"

A more proper statement would be that fire one manifestation of an extremely exothermic reaction. If we go back to the sulfur and aluminum reaction, yes, you get a fire. The heat is from the transfer of electrons from aluminum to sulfur with the creation of a product, aluminum sulfide salt.

You get heat, light, and other kinds of energy too?

It's the release of energy from the breaking and making of new chemical bonds that results in the release of energy. Again, fire is just a manifestation of that process. Your body does something similar all of the time. Food is reacted with oxygen to produce ATP, which in turn allows your muscles to move. That energy does a bunch of stuff as well, like make brain neurotransmitters and such as well.

Socrates gave a different perspective on that; contrary to vandal's claim, it is still valid. We (normally) need physical energy to physically move and breathe, but it is our decision that makes us move. And as Sheldrake points out, we create energy too. There was never any proof that the amount of energy we have is equal to the food we eat. It can be more, or less. The elan vital, the 5th element, the quintessence of the universe, is omitted from excessively-empircal science. But empirical science is inherently limited in its description of anything whatsover. It is always after the fact of any spontaneous creation, and it depends on the senses which are themselves objects of the senses.

Empirical Science does not and cannot know what's really going on within our bodies.

I don't think the above is what is actually what is going on.
1. Yes, the strong force binds atomic nuclei. I think the associated particle is a gluon, though I may be wrong.
2. Electromagnetism is the force involved with electric generation and electron shifts. The associated particle is the photon
3. Week force. I had to look this up. W/Z bosons are the particles.
4. Gravity. "Gravitron", not characterized , but theorized at present.

I just listed the forces. I don't know why you have to describe them as particles. Particles are merely how we see it after a measurement. The double-slit experiment, remember. Don't believe vandal's pratter about that. Particles don't really exist except as our own measurement, and measurement is inherently limited and approximate, always. That which changes in time, for example, can't be accurately measured, and a wave is always in time. "Particles" are just the scientists' way of talking about energy. They have to reduce everything to particles in order to make sense of energy in terms of their world view. But for those who like particles, they can probably make the connections that they want.

Nawww. It's all generational. Vandal's Fluorine [GenX would be the non-metals] and you're cesium. [Boomers = metals]. Now when you 2 get too close together, an enormous exerthermic reaction occurs for all to see. I'm selenium.

I wish it could be harnessed, to help with our energy conversion...

Interesting theory; I'm sure Mr. Howe would approve Now Vandal? I'm not so sure. Too metaphorical. What is the evidence that Vandal IS flourine and Eric IS cesium? Such new age Gobbledygook!

Actually, although I have trouble with most core Xers here, their behavior is not all the same as Vandal's. Similar tho, I must admit. I'm thinkin' Galen, Semo, Copperfield..... but I think Vandal is uniquely bad. Maybe highly-ionized flourine?

I can get along with core Xers fine; in just usual contact, they are no problem for me. But we generally don't travel in the same circles, so my contact with them is somewhat rare. Some of the people born in the early to mid 70s here are a problem for me to get along with, but others I've met in person from those cohorts, are fine for me; in fact, sometimes they are "awesome," as someone claimed here. Or, at least they were, a few years ago...

I hope you have enjoyed some of the videos I posted; they've been up for a while, after all. Check out the psi evidence.....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Come on, man. You merely said that the new elements had not received names. That doesn't mean anything. How many elements there are, means nothing to my worldview either, of course. Vandal first knocked my post saying only 114 elements had been discovered, not 118. When I showed that one of them had been created, then he said it had not been officially accepted by the right committee.

You claimed there were 118 and linked to a periodic table as proof. You didn't understand what the three letter symbols on a periodic table actually meant.

OK then. Astronomers decide if Pluto is a planet, and some physicists decide if elements are formally recognized.

Chemists, actually. Not physicists.

International Union of Physical and Applied Chemistry

Gases are a subject I am interested in in these discussions. Vandal is always liable to take them in directions I am not interested in, but allows him to show off how much more he knows than I do about "science."

That might be a good point; food for thought. I can't see how a flame is in the state of gas, though.

There's one of your problems. A flame isn't a substance unto itself. States of matter apply to substances. The region of spacetime where you see "a flame" is actually filled with many different substances. Some of them are in the solid state (soot particles", some of them are in the gas state (carbon dioxide and water) and some of them are in the plasma state (minority metals). The only reason you see "a flame" is because in that region those substances are rapidly giving off energy in the form of photons that are within the visible to human frequency band.

Gases disperse throughout any place where they are. Flames hold a shape, are based from a fuel source, and only rise.

No they don't.

Gases don't do any of these things; they both rise and spread out horizontally and every which way. If "plasma" equals ionized atoms, but they are or can be gases, then plasma is not equal to the element fire or to any of the 5 ancient elements.

Plasmas are not just "ionized gases". Both plasmas and gases , as well as liquids, are fluids. That's your problem. You've been equating fluid with liquid instead of recognizing what scientists already know.

A state of matter must be exclusive to the other states in its behavior

. If something behaves like a solid, then it is not some other exotic state of matter. If it behaves like a gas, then it is not a liquid or solid.

Think of it this way. There are two fundamental categories for states of matter, solids and fluids. Within those categories are numerous sub-categories. Solids include: ionic solids, metallic solids, covalent network solids, molecular solids, and amorphous solids. Fluids include: liquids, gases, supercritical fluids, plasmas, Bose-Einstein condensates, superfluids, quark-gluon plasmas, etc.

Just some condition of atoms being ionized or not does not seem relevant to what is or isn't a "state of matter" in the ancient system.

That's exactly why the ancient system was rejected by scientists. It doesn't actually describe real matter.

These days the chemists, having denied the connection to the old system, have started to use the term differently, apparently. So plasma and Bose-Einstein condensations/other rare and exotic states can also be called states of matter. But they are not like the old elements, or the modern states of matter as usually understood, because their behavior is not mutually exclusive to them, as far as I know, although I don't know much about these rare states.

Even though you admit to not knowing much about this you still vehemently claim that you are right in this argument?

Fruitbat.

My statement is that the states of matter are the old "elements" so-called; the name was changed to protect the innocent, as it were, but the story was true. The term element was re-applied to something else, once it became part of the new chemistry. It was then applied to what the term metal meant before, and most elements (but not all) are in fact metals. Perhaps the ancients such as Plato attributed some explanations of things to elements that are not now attributed to "states of matter."

There is no "perhaps". Plato was simply wrong. Thank you Enlightenment.

Many experiments have been done. The Radin video is a good start. Quantum entanglement does not prove ESP; it just makes it more plausible.

No, that's not what's going on. Elimination of bias is not what militant skeptics have accomplished. They have created bias. Vandal's statements are based on his worldview, which is detailed quite well in the Sheldrake videos, and of course I have known about these dogmas for decades and discussed them on this thread which I started and goes back at least 15 years. There is no evidence for these dogmas. They are assumptions from philosophy and religion. Any evidence presented to Vandal that conflicts with his worldview will be dismissed without any consideration.

You never present evidence. All you ever do is parrot what someone else has said or completely misrepresent what experiments have shown.

He also insists that people use science terms in their precise meaning in science, even though most people are not scientists, or even science teachers like him. He forgets that words also refer to everyday experience. He is lost in his professional world; its worldview, its biases and its language.

You keep claiming that science supports your ridiculous claims. I'm just showing that the support you claim is based on nothing more than you confusing the everyday meanings of words for their scientific meanings. If you do it by mistake then you are just ignorant. If you do it intentionally, then it is in fact quote mining.

And you don't major in subjects in grade school, silly.

There's probably something to that, although I don't think Vandal would cop to it.