No to the entire quote. If we're bringing in pseudoscience, is bad grammar really all that important?[b said:Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 08 2005,4:58)]No to what Nrbelex? Are you able to speak in full sentences or not?
~ Brett
No to the entire quote. If we're bringing in pseudoscience, is bad grammar really all that important?[b said:Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 08 2005,4:58)]No to what Nrbelex? Are you able to speak in full sentences or not?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]The only common ground we can possibly reach at this time is that there is not enough scientific data to prove or disprove it at this time, and I hope that scientificly we in this discussion wont try to take it any further in any direction pro or con, because it would be mostly opinionative at that point.
Well here's one of the sites that trys to explain what water has to do with ORMEs. Don't ask me what they're trying to say... you're the translator here.[b said:Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 08 2005,5:08)]OK, what the heck does water have to do with ORME's? The answer is it doesn't. And if you were able to understand what I just typed on this page you would know that I JUST said that ORMEs haven't been scientificly proven or disproven, so there is no reason to debate that aspect of it.
Coming from a person who cannot spell?[b said:Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 08 2005,6:58)]Are you able to speak in full sentences or not?
The article you posted claims 'monatomic' is a new phase of matter. I am telling you that helium (as well as all the other noble gases) is a monatomic element in its natural state. Now, is helium an example of a new, hitherto unknown state of matter?[b said:Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 09 2005,1:44)]There would and is obviously OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLYOBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLYOBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY , and should be blatantly obvious that there is a difference between a single helium atom and a single gold or heavy metal atom. Lord....
The two are synonymous. Maybe you should read the link you posted?[b said:Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 09 2005,2:08)]I wouldn't call monoatamic gold a new phase of matter myself, but rather a dif state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter)
This is a baldfaced lie. You don't need to do jack with valence electrons to use spectroscopy to determine the elemental composition of matter. This statement might have been true 80 years ago, 60 years before David Hudson came along, but it is certainly not true of chemistry for the last half a century. There is no way we would have missed something this simple. This is what all these, "Nobody is studying it." claims are based on, and it's the weakest part of the story yet. I'm sorry, but you need to post a link from a credible source dated since 2000 before we continue. You have given nothing empirical to support your claim. You've read all these papers, so scroll down to the bibliography and tell us where the primary information came from. I'm tired of wading through all this mystical alchemy hoopla in search of studies that I know aren't there.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Because the valence electrons of monatomic atoms are unavailable, the atoms are unidentifiable. To detect a monatomic element requires that you first convert it from its monatomic state to its normal state to allow the element to be detected with conventional instrumentation. As a result, this phase of matter has existed as a stealth material right under the noses of scientists without detection until very recently.