Turtle Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 ___I confess I don't know a thing about this "Z" business, but when I hear structure I have to say Buckminster Fuller. You say how does an island of stability develop by a leap of degrees?; I say it takes a leap of degree to make a Fullerine. Too few or too many atoms of carbon & you have, well, another form of carbon.___By Fuller's tetrahedral accounting, the internal structuring of atoms is self-similarly tetrahedral & synergetic (property of emergence). I encourage you guys to give Fuller's Synergetics a read. ;) ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 Most definatly. At the moment there is 118 elements, more gets discovered every year, it also depends on the enviroment they are discovered, remember that after 85 all elements are unstable, so there could be a source out there that provides much more elements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 yeah and some of these unstable new elements that are been found last for fractions of a second - not enough time to determine simple properties like melting and boiling point! so what is the motivation - that they find one and they can then name it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justforfun Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 I read somewhere that the big bang theory is bull and was invented by Catholic theologians so God would be older than the universe. Some objections to the theory include observations of objects that are older than the estimated age of the universe, objects such as galaxies collide which seems illogical if they're all flying away from each other, and others I don't understand. A steady-state universe constantly creating matter ( or bringing it from other universes via black holes ) seems more logical to me. Of course with the tons of new data we're getting each day, new theories should be forthcoming soon. We live in interesting times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 yeah its true, there has been estimations of the age of the universe ranging from 15-20billion years, while some of the furtherst objects from us, quasars, have been estimated to be further away then 20billion light years... It is not illogical that galaxies can collide in an expanding universe - yes on a grand scale the expansion is beating gravity, but in localised areas it still pulls galaxies together. Right now we are hurtling towards Andromeda and we will collide with it in a few billion years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted November 2, 2005 Report Share Posted November 2, 2005 I would guess that if the laws of physics are the same everywhere than the laws of chemistry would also be the same everywhere. Higher elements may form but would not last too long outside hot dense stellar environments. This post ended in the wrong forum. Â While I'm here, the BB may have occurred but our explanation of the expansion needs to be modernized to take into consideration how galaxies could form within the first 200Millions years. Right now the continuum expansion model can not accommodate this and other data like the superstructures needing to be older than the universe (if from a continuum expansion) how to explain spiral galaxies with more turns than is possible using the continuum model and the current predicted age of the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted November 15, 2005 Report Share Posted November 15, 2005 Are the laws of physics the same on all the other planets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 i wonder why i hear more about the stars than i do the bottom of the ocean?do scientists know more about the stars than the ocean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 i wonder why i hear more about the stars than i do the bottom of the ocean?do scientists know more about the stars than the ocean? The difference is that exploring the stars is easier than exploring the water. Space is empty, oceans are full of water, pressure differences, animals, etc. that makes it more difficult to explore... even so, I don't think we know more than stars... we may know the location of many of them... but not the exact estructure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goku Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 The difference is that exploring the stars is easier than exploring the water.does anybody else see the irony in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 does anybody else see the irony in that? let me explain better... maybe I'm wrong... but exploring water involves more risks and other things... to explore stars... yes, you need very advanced equipment, but it doesn't seem that risky... but maybe I'm wrong... after all space is way more big, the ocean is not comparable in size... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted November 26, 2005 Report Share Posted November 26, 2005 Are the laws of physics the same on all the other planets?Yes, there is no reason to believe that the elements behave differently in other parts of the universe, or that the strong nuclear force is stronger, or anything like that. The conditions on different worlds can be different though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.