carbon attraction?

Hello howie doing?

Carbon has been carefully designed so that it easily combines with almost everything.

On this Planet Earth, it is the basic building block for almost all forms of life.

The logical Website for you to read more about this fascinating element, is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

Read all the weblinks there, have fun.

Kind Regards....

I bet you played 5/8. Very neatly passed and very correct as well. That is a bit tricky when you are talking about something as weird as carbon.

Are there any other elements out there that have positive and negative valencies? I can't think of any.

BAB.

Hello BlueAussieBoy

As far as I can establish, there are two other elemental possibilities for life forms:

1. Silicon
2. Sulphur

There may well be other elements as a base for life, but would we recognise such a creature as "life"?

⁵/₈ : I always regarded, and still do, rugby as a rather silly game, where the fast heavy pack will always win, even over slower, lighter, more-skilled opposition.

Perhaps this was caused by learning Soccer at primary school, becoming quite good at it, then at Secondary College, we were forced to play Rugby, with an entirely different set of rules, different boots, also that oval ball, whose bounce could not be predicted, and which I quickly discovered, that the "game" was an excuse for "sporting thuggery".

Kind Regards....

In 'Theory' monkeys could also fly out my butt, though they would probably still be carbon based.

You also missed Phosphorus, arsenic, amonia, et al. But then again, you're basing your argument on the realm of only the remotest possibilities you've gleened from SciFi, not observed feasabilities or emperical data. Nor are you being relevant to the question.

If it was sarcasm you were attempting, then I would suggest working on your delivery. If you were serious, then I would suggest working on your sanity.

As for your misunderstanding of Rugby, I can understand the dilema you face as you forgot what sports actually are. They are an attempt to allow combat but remove the consequences. They are designed to not make sense. We know that in a "reptile brain" understanding, hence the trend towards more and more violent sports (think Ultimate Fighting). Rugby is a little less rigid and a little more brutal than most. But that just brings it closer to our expectations.

I would expect more consternation over Football (Soccer). It is more of an enigma, as it's fans are far more likely to enter into combat that the teams that are supposed to. Teams following the rules of the sport is not thuggery, fans following no rules...IS!

Well said, Cardio.

Mike

Aye, matey. NH3 is not an element, but I be thinkin' da posed issue dealt with life. The possibility of a lifecycle based on amonia is a scientific possibility. So Amonia is a molecule. Is interhalogen an element? Have you seen any possibilitie that ozone could support amino acids or anything that could be comprerable? I think the whole premis was a life capable compound. Much has been written and discussed on the possibilitied so amonia is a possible base compound...never heard of an interhalogen possibility or any of the valances of any compound? Ozone, another nonstarter. Would you like to open your dicitionary and toss out more things that are not even remote possibilities?

But you think you have the answers to things that have not been yet. You must be a professor, or aspire to be one. Nothing like the arrogance of the pat answer. Toss it, boyo. Your kind professed the linear nature of the earth for thousands of years, You burned people for thinking the earth was not the center of the universe...and you molest little boys and girls in greater numbers than religious figures.

Ever seen any theory with Ozone as a basis for life? You can quote derivitives all you want, it doesn't seem to have any followers.

Carbon, yes...proven and us...Silicon..theorized....Amonia...theorized... NH3 may not be an element, but neither are you completey carbon, but you are a carbon based life form. And an idiot, but that is much more subjective, though through your comments you tend to solidify the assumption..

Since you just want to toss out terms instead of chemically feasable possibilities..be my guest...but then I'd have to say that your intelect was probably developed from a derivative of Silly Putty.

Keep trying, and one day you may master ridicule instead of just having to lick the shit off your shoes cause they spend so much time in your mouth.

Ciao Bella

Perhaps you mean "Carbon has properties that allow it to combine with almost everything". Adding a motive to reality is not helpful. Occam rules!

Hello ffej

Once I would have agreed with you, except for your last sentence above.

Occam does not actually rule anything.

I came to understand many years ago, that whether we realise it or not, the Universe is of a marvellous design, although very temporary, and assembled for a special purpose, just for us.

Kind Regards....

Question Sparky.

Which of the items, in the above two photographs, is the more complex in design?

Hi MOBI,

OK - I was not asked, but here's my answer anyway:

The leaf is directly more complex.

The watch is indirectly more complex - it was created by an organism more complex than the leaf .

Mike

The leaf is directly more complex.

Okay, your answer is correct mikey.

The watch is indirectly more complex - it was created

This is also true.

So the question is if one accepts that the inferior watch was made by someone............what about the leaf?

This is just a general question..........not directed to anyone specifically.

My sentiments EXACTLY!!

Mike

Well that's two of us that don't walk around with our eyes closed and our minds in neutral.

We can look in awe and wonder at the magnificent creations, not only in the entire universe but especially on our unique planet, earth.

Hi MOBI,

Make that 3!

Even if viable mutations occur fast enough, the probability that these changes/mutations happen in a sequence that will actually cause a change toward higher complexity would be statistically impossible - even given "billions and billions of years" time frame!

On another note - going back to the original post topic, what do you think about other races of (material!) beings being possible?

Personally, I believe that they could exist - maybe carbon-based, maybe not. I would go in for them being created too. Some books I found interesting on this subject (although fiction) are C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy ("Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra", and "That Hideous Strength").

Best Regards

Hi Mikerho,

Just like an explosion in a printery...............resulting in the Oxford Dictionary.

Although I have not been able to sit down and read a novel for many years (cannot concentrate-PTSD), my personal belief is that that there is no other physical beings in the universe.

When we look at our planet, its distance from the sun, the various life sustaining cycles, water having a maximum density at 4⁰C, etc., etc., etc., I do not believe that any other life exists............at this point in time.

MOBI, My sympathies for your struggle with PTSD. There are some very good methods for getting through it. Some regression and hypnosis got me through mine (military related trauma). I wish you luck.

But as to your statement that you believe there is no other life: I pose a question; Nature (or Creator if you choose) is very efficient. We can only wish to have the skill that nature has in all of it's reactions. Nature (or Creator) is not wasteful.

Now if we are the only living beings in this VAST universe, would that not be an insane waste of space, time and energy?

I am not being ludicrous, I'm totally serious and I will wait for your serious reply.

Dragon

PTSD. Not here, not now, no recriminations. talk to me. tom@kaighin.us Do or not, won't judge you either way

I may judge you on other things, but such is life :P

To Sparkstation: about the universe being of a marvelous temporary design.

I'm reading "Three Paths to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin.

I'm NOT a math person (I can do algegra, trig and calculus, but never ventured beyond that.) However, the book is immensely readable to the lay person who has an interest in this subject. And I found correlations to the normal work of living life. That is, he is very generous in his acknowledgement of the contribution of many, many people, towards a goal. So he takes the time to describe the efforts of many people, even ones working on what will eventually be known as "dead ends," which are absolutely necessary, in order to eliminate those 'solutions' as valid.

Getting back to your comment. The temporary nature of the universe is described by Mr. Smolin in this manner.

All matter contains, at it's very central core, a gravitational process, made up of both physical particles and energy.

When this gravitational system is pulled apart by some force (which may or may not be known - I haven't gotten that far) the individual particles which made up the original center, the bosons and fermions, are individually attracted to each other, forever.

Another way of saying that is to say that once a boson or fermion is broken apart, the two parts are always connected through an as yet unknown process, no matter how far apart they are from one another. Yes! The force of the attraction does not diminish over distance!

Now we can get to the temporary nature of the universe.

One Plank second is computed to be 5.3907205 x 10 (negative exponent 44).

If I am correctly understanding Lee Smolin's explanation of the "possible" construction of the universe, then the separation of these super-elementary particles occurs in one Plank second, and in the next Plank second, the particles come together again.

The particles separate over a distance that is measured by us as approx. 14.5 billion light years, and the largest distance that they have become separated is also at 14.5 billion light years.

However, this measurement only applies if the person making the measurement is "alive" during a very, very, very large number of these Plank seconds.

And this measurement has to be taken from a point of view which would be described as "within" the inside of this distance.

However, every other "Plank second," the particles once again come together into their smallest configuration.

So, "temporary" takes on an entirely new meaning, does it not?

"The particles separate over a distance that is measured by us as approx. 14.5 billion light years, and the largest distance that they have become separated is also at 14.5 billion light years". If we assume, for the sake of arguement, that a Big Bang occured and it's origin is roughly in the center of the Universal sphere, some 14.5 billion light years away, wouldn't there also be at least another 14.5 billion l. y. of Universe on the other "side" or hemisphere of that center?

To: Cardio07:

Yes, your comment is correct. I should have said, 14.5 billion years from the center, which would put the distance across the universe at approximately 29 billion l.y. in distance.

One small discrepancy in your analysis of this. Energy cannot be destroyed. It doesn't matter if the person observing it is alive or not. That one statement dismisses you as an idiot. Might I suggest you rephrase your dismissal and is not part of Mr. Smolin's explanation other than the simile that it was attempting to compose. That you didn't see that, exemplifies your professed ignorance of the nuances of the discussion.

No biggie, but you are trying to pull minute semantics into a much broader and factual conversation.

Let me know when you figure out where you went wrong in your analysis and I can hopefully set you straight on some of the more intricate extrapolations that encompass the general theory that you have butchered beyond repair.

When you pull things out of your rectal sphincter and try to pass them off as knowledge, you should do so on a teen popularity site, and not one with people subscribed to it that have an IQ over your shoe size, something you have yet to achieve.

I profess no insight that will help explain the quandry you have in understanding. But try to refrain from stating it as a fact because you know because you read and partially understood something in a book.

You've offered no insight, not explanation or no question...you've just stated your angst over not understanding (yes, we can read between the lines).

Do you actually have a question?...an observation...empiracle knowledge...an epiphany?

Questioning something because you do not understand is an admirable trait. Arguing a position without having any background or knowledge brands you an idiot. Consider yourself temporarily branded, Idiot. Good news is, it's a temporary state, as long as you keep searching. Been there many times my self and have the little tri-plumed hat with the bells to prove it.

Note of advice, quit asking questions that you qualify the answers to. Think of it this way...would you go to someone's house and ask them a question, and then proceed to tell them how they have to answer you? If it was my house, I'd kick you in the nads, throw you out the door and have my dog relieve himself on your face while you writhed in agony. And I'm normally considered a 'Nice' person. (the rest of you readers, shut up, he doesn't know better yet :P ).

Now, you said you're not a math person...gee, Einstein also was not a math person....he was a visual person. And he readily admitted it. He 'saw' constructs that we now try to model mathematically. Greater and General relativity may still be theories, but we still can't poke holes in them.

Quit listening to one person (unless, of course, it's me), ask questions that do not try to prove an agenda, and learn.

I'm out of energy to continue identifying your inadequacies, so I'm going to end this. But should you have any specific questions, feel free to post them here or send me private messages. If you're going to berate me, make it mild in the general posts and save your vitriol for private messages as viewers tend to get annoyed at vile posts. I don't, so anything you say in private, remains so.

This post was meant to be helpful. I have doubts that it will be received as such. I fully expect it to be read and violently disavowed. That's cool. I can deal with that. But I hope you reread and try to understand the statements and observations that I have made and think about them.

If not, no sweat off my ass. I also recommend you rereading Lee, but taking a more critical eye. Theory is not fact. Written words are not always true. Analogies do not always prove a point or make sense. Trust me, I've authored a few that wouldn't pass the scrutiny of a 6th grade public school class. Ok, no, but you get the drift.

Now that I've picked apart your post and offered a re-education regime, did you actually have a question or were you just posting random thoughts posed as questions?

?? Attract what??? How long is a piece of string???

Carbon only exists in two elemental forms Diamond - very hard and non conductive, Crystals are clear but powder is white (high refraction) & Graphite - very soft , good conductor, black (absorbs light).

As to carbon dating - look up Isotopes subject is expansive.

Carbon compounds are another story - there must be billions.

the reason for the question is because is carbon bonds so well like gas in co2 can we not attract carbon to carbon in an exhaust system? just curious...

Hi howie doing

An important question indeed. If I was an element looking for a date I'd probably give carbon a shot - after all it's black, and you know what they say "when you've tried black you never go back". Maybe carbon hasn't found anything better yet.

John

At last, the correct answer. We can now put this thread to bed. Scotty, beam me back to earth!

Where were you? On a planet with silicon-based life forms?

I can't remember, it was 14.5 billion years ago! I've lost short term memory

seriously though. how come no one has answered the question?

I guess I just got sidetracked with all of the other answers! My attention-span just gets shorter and shorter. Now... what was I saying?

You did give a straight answer so GA2U

Mike