Jump to content

Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?


Recommended Posts

Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?

The image are " some" of the measuring tools I speak of.

 

The point I am trying to comprehend is how chemistry is connected to " perimeters of geometry " see images." When I say connected, I mean how a substance is used with the science tool to carefully measure its volume, mass and etc..

 

With this said, how does this correlate with " balancing chemical equations."

Would that be pointless with man made tools of measure then???

 

Or am I not getting something?

laboratory-equipment_3.jpg

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it would. Th principles of chemistry existed before we had ways of probing them and detecting their outcomes, so I'm not sure I understand your question. The rest of your post makes little to no sense.

Wasn't the periodic table created not too long ago?

 

 

 

Cloning is a good example here:

 

Would the " subject still have a " soul" if the subject was cloned as another human being?

 

The body would be the device " ie: measuring tool that holds the molecules together" and the organic copy " ie: the human" would be the chemical substances.

 

 

Where does the humun's soul come from, can science create this to???

 

 

 

So you mean that in "Ancient Times" they could have been experimenting on nuclear methods as science does today in our current day and age with the current devices to measure?

 

 

I have read that Uranium was found near by the ancient pyramids..

http://nuclearpyramid.com/other_two_pyramids.php

Long before mankind was here, plants grew.

CO2+ H2O --> Cellulose etc. + O2

 

That's chemistry with or without human intervention.

" man made" measuring devices?" John, of coarse I already knew this.

 

But in our current world we now have more " harmful elements in the air than any other time due to scientific experiments, this is fact here. Let me be more direct:

 

Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?

 

The point is that I am wondering if these devices have anything to do with " distance" IE the " size " of beacons per say, the length of a thermometer.

 

Not sure why someone gave me a negative reputation but obviously some scientist don't like it when people ask " hard questions" that seem un- answered. People look up to scientist for answers, they should be more patient, more sincere, more compassionate....As for " me" I just like asking them question confused.gif

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the periodic table created not too long ago?

What's your point?

 

 

Cloning is a good example here:

 

Would the " subject still have a " soul" if the subject was cloned as another human being?

 

The body would be the device " ie: measuring tool that holds the molecules together" and the organic copy " ie: the human" would be the chemical substances.

 

 

Where does the humun's soul come from, can science create this to???

What does the soul have to do with anything? I thought you were asking scientific questions here.

 

 

So you mean that in "Ancient Times" they could have been experimenting on nuclear methods as science does today in our current day and age with the current devices to measure?

That's not what mean. Read my post again. Of course ancient civilisations experimented with chemistry and used chemical methods without actually knowing what was going on, but that's not what exactly I said. I mean that the concepts that we now know and put under the blanket of chemistry were there before we had the methods of detecting them. John's example of photosynthesis is a good example. Plants have been around for eons and chemistry of photosynthesis has been around for longer, yet we only discovered it relatively recently.

 

 

" man made" measuring devices?" John, of coarse I already knew this.

 

But in our current world we now have more " harmful elements in the air than any other time due to scientific experiments, this is fact here. Let me be more direct:

 

Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?

 

The point is that I am wondering if these devices have anything to do with " distance" IE the " size " of beacons per say, the length of a thermometer.

The bits in red make absolutely no sense. If you want to have your questions answered to your satisfaction, you need communicate them more effectively. Your 'fact' is totally irrelevant to your initial question and to John's response and your question of beacon size...what beacons? Thermometers are fairly old as far as technology goes as well.

 

Not sure why someone gave me a negative reputation but obviously some scientist don't like it when people ask " hard questions" that seem un- answered. People look up to scientist for answers, they should be more patient, more sincere, more compassionate....As for " me" I just like asking them question confused.gif

You aren't asking hard questions, you're asking a combination of nonsensical and trivial ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The periodic table was as much a discovery as an invention.

Cloning has next to nothing to do with chemistry.

The soul has even less. The problem with trying to involve a "soul" in science is that there is no reason to believe that a soul exists.

 

The clear answer to the question "

Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?"

is yes.

 

"Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?"

Matter of definition.

Am I allowed to make the devices?

If so then I can still do science.

If not then the scope is a bit limited, but I could, for example, still make soap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's your point?

 

 

What does the soul have to do with anything? I thought you were asking scientific questions here.

 

 

That's not what mean. Read my post again. Of course ancient civilisations experimented with chemistry and used chemical methods without actually knowing what was going on, but that's not what exactly I said. I mean that the concepts that we now know and put under the blanket of chemistry were there before we had the methods of detecting them. John's example of photosynthesis is a good example. Plants have been around for eons and chemistry of photosynthesis has been around for longer, yet we only discovered it relatively recently.

 

 

The bits in red make absolutely no sense. If you want to have your questions answered to your satisfaction, you need communicate them more effectively. Your 'fact' is totally irrelevant to your initial question and to John's response and your question of beacon size...what beacons? Thermometers are fairly old as far as technology goes as well.

 

You aren't asking hard questions, you're asking a combination of nonsensical and trivial ones.

 

So where in the forum rules does it say that questions need to be in certain preferred classes?

 

Method?

 

Style?

 

 

I thought I was " too" asking scientific questions, until I realized, they were --> nonsensical and trivial ---> as per your words.

 

 

About the human soul, spirit or what ever it is, it still remains something scientist cannot explain..

 

"Love" being one of them!

 

 

The other member forget this refereed to ---> " man made devices"

The periodic table was as much a discovery as an invention.

Cloning has next to nothing to do with chemistry.

The soul has even less. The problem with trying to involve a "soul" in science is that there is no reason to believe that a soul exists.

 

The clear answer to the question "

Would chemistry still exist, if their were no " man made" measuring devices?"

is yes.

 

"Can a scientist " without these devices" still perform science methods as normal routine?"

Matter of definition.

Am I allowed to make the devices?

If so then I can still do science.

If not then the scope is a bit limited, but I could, for example, still make soap.

Now things make better sense John thanks!, although the soup can still be created, it would still have different masses, color and etc, " assumed you did this by hand" if your were to create more and more and open your own business " example there"

 

"Machinery" I am assuming that devices are used for precision ie, such as milligrams in aspirin for example.

Since aspirin in boxes at stores must be "even multiples" of each other, ie have same dosages for the patience, I assume then your method " soap" example would not work.

 

 

Could this have been an issue back in ancient times??????

Considering the human mass and milligrams we know of today as a standard dosage??

 

 

I guess the real question is, why did science evolve in this fashion in our current world today???

 

You are very correct about the periodic table by the way..

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a nuisance but I could measure out a 300 miligram dose of aspirin for you even if I only had scales that measure to the nearest gram. or even the nearest 10 grams.

 

But you still need to work on the clarity of your questions.

You also need to understand that putting ideas like the soul into a scientific discussion is, at best, a waste of time.

 

"I guess the real question is, why did science evolve in this fashion in our current world today???"

Well, here's the simple answer.

http://xkcd.com/54/

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a nuisance but I could measure out a 300 miligram dose of aspirin for you even if I only had scales that measure to the nearest gram. or even the nearest 10 grams.

 

But you still need to work on the clarity of your questions.

You also need to understand that putting ideas like the soul into a scientific discussion is, at best, a waste of time.

 

"I guess the real question is, why did science evolve in this fashion in our current world today???"

Well, here's the simple answer.

http://xkcd.com/54/

You should have warned me about the -> " this comic occasionally contains "strong language"

 

Yes I agree with you I need to work the clarity of my questions a bit better, but at times science coupled with all the " unknown" realities of this craft at times can be quite difficult..

 

Another example about devices is how Max Planck found his constant in a kiln, ie black body radiation and " Standing Waves."

 

I am trying to express the devices used coupled with their discoveries..

I am wondering if it had not been for this kiln could the h constant still have been discovered, using another method ?

 

Don't know if this could be be any help, but I am mostly talking about multiples and their sound units, like the milligram example earlier.

Edited by Iwonderaboutthings
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I think I get it:

What the poster is asking is "how reliant are we on our measurement tools?", "what is the interdependence of science and its measurement tools?" and "can we do science without measurement?"

 

You have to understand that science, in its heart, is an explanation of measurements. As measurement tools and technology improve, so does the science. I love spectroscopy, so I'll use it as an example.

 

Your eyes are a measurement device. You see blue. You see different shades of blue (I, however, am colorblind, so my measurement tool is very imprecise). Using a prism, you can look at how broad the different hues are or how they relate to one another (is one to the left or right to another in position). Upon careful observation and multiple experiments, you find that blue occurs at wavelengths between 450–495 nm. Then you replace your eye with a photodiode. You can now get a better look at the intensity/position of the light. Now you have a spectrum.

 

Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman was able to observe the Raman effect in 1928, but it wasn't able to be used practically until the invention of the laser. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy was not widely used until computers were readily available to do the complex FT calculations quickly. Science is, indeed, limited by its tools. However, new tools are often created in scientific investigations. h does not have to be found in a kiln. If he had ran a current through silicon carbide, he would have seen the same thing.

 

What does this have to do with balancing chemical equations? Take 1 part sulphur, 2 parts saltpetre, and 3 parts charcoal and mix. I image if you eyeball this, you would make a functional gunpowder, just not as good if you measured it with a scale. And nowhere near as good if you balanced the masses using molecular weights. And guess what, you are still using a measurement tool (your eyeball)! I came up with that using chemical equations. There would, however, be no equations without careful measurements in the past.

 

As a throwaway aside on the clone/soul, there is a (kinda) scientific answer to your question. There is no fundamental difference between a clone and an identical twin (outside of time between births). Same genetic material, same gene sequence. So unless identical twins are soulless (hence, the evil twin), clones would also have a soul. QED! You cannot measure a soul, so it is not a science topic. A friend once asked if I believed in ghosts (he and his wife had a disagreement over their existence), to which I replied "I don't know if they exist or not, and unless you can figure out a way to make them power my cell phone, I don't care!" As a religious scientist, I recognize that these things must remain separate.

 

Finally, a "scientific question" actually differs from a regular question. It must be carefully posed to eliminate ambiguity. Ideally, it should either be explainable using current science or testable using experiment. The soul question actually highlights both of these. Souls are not able to be explained using current science knowledge. There are no satisfactory experiment that can be done to "measure" a soul (though many have tried!). You need to tighten your train of thought, think about what you are asking, or the question becomes unanswerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I think I get it:

What the poster is asking is "how reliant are we on our measurement tools?", "what is the interdependence of science and its measurement tools?" and "can we do science without measurement?"

 

You have to understand that science, in its heart, is an explanation of measurements. As measurement tools and technology improve, so does the science. I love spectroscopy, so I'll use it as an example.

 

Your eyes are a measurement device. You see blue. You see different shades of blue (I, however, am colorblind, so my measurement tool is very imprecise). Using a prism, you can look at how broad the different hues are or how they relate to one another (is one to the left or right to another in position). Upon careful observation and multiple experiments, you find that blue occurs at wavelengths between 450–495 nm. Then you replace your eye with a photodiode. You can now get a better look at the intensity/position of the light. Now you have a spectrum.

 

Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman was able to observe the Raman effect in 1928, but it wasn't able to be used practically until the invention of the laser. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy was not widely used until computers were readily available to do the complex FT calculations quickly. Science is, indeed, limited by its tools. However, new tools are often created in scientific investigations. h does not have to be found in a kiln. If he had ran a current through silicon carbide, he would have seen the same thing.

 

What does this have to do with balancing chemical equations? Take 1 part sulphur, 2 parts saltpetre, and 3 parts charcoal and mix. I image if you eyeball this, you would make a functional gunpowder, just not as good if you measured it with a scale. And nowhere near as good if you balanced the masses using molecular weights. And guess what, you are still using a measurement tool (your eyeball)! I came up with that using chemical equations. There would, however, be no equations without careful measurements in the past.

 

As a throwaway aside on the clone/soul, there is a (kinda) scientific answer to your question. There is no fundamental difference between a clone and an identical twin (outside of time between births). Same genetic material, same gene sequence. So unless identical twins are soulless (hence, the evil twin), clones would also have a soul. QED! You cannot measure a soul, so it is not a science topic. A friend once asked if I believed in ghosts (he and his wife had a disagreement over their existence), to which I replied "I don't know if they exist or not, and unless you can figure out a way to make them power my cell phone, I don't care!" As a religious scientist, I recognize that these things must remain separate.

 

Finally, a "scientific question" actually differs from a regular question. It must be carefully posed to eliminate ambiguity. Ideally, it should either be explainable using current science or testable using experiment. The soul question actually highlights both of these. Souls are not able to be explained using current science knowledge. There are no satisfactory experiment that can be done to "measure" a soul (though many have tried!). You need to tighten your train of thought, think about what you are asking, or the question becomes unanswerable.

I will take your advice only because I think you are incredible! WOW! best answer.....

wink.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.