[NTJedi]

Arryn...
It was a typo... missed the spacebar... big deal and your post is nothing but an off topic flame. Stay focused or please stay off the topic.


=================

Originally posted by GavinWheeler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NTJedi:
[qb] Any scientist would strongly disagree with you because there are Unknown substances which have still yet to be found and created.

I have a PhD in molecular physical chemistry and a dozen publications - does that make me enough of a 'scientist' to qualify for your appeal to authority?

---

Then you should well know that there are things which qualify as unknown and nonexistent. I've listed only a few examples... to say someone or something knows everything about all nonexistent objects/things is obviously wrong.
A new fuel developed next year... qualifies now as an unknown nonexistent object. The discussion for developing the futuristic fuel may not have even started yet.


[quote]
As I said, even if no atoms of a theoretical element exists, we can still know that the 'element' exists in potentia, can often work out probable qualities of atoms with that number of protons (such as how many neutrons it needs to be as stable as possible) and so on.

The concept of gold, the laws that govern it and set the properties of atoms with 79 protons, all exist whether or not any of the actual stuff exists.

Based on my example... The properties for creating gold would be possible yes... but until that took place gold would remain as an unknown nonexistent object because there would be no available samples(thus nonexistent). There would only be the knowledge that yes it creates something(thus unknown). Even taken to a more basic level a spider web was unknown and non-existent until the first time it was actually created.

[ March 19, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: NTJedi ]