Talk:Chemical Elements

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Did I miss a discussion of this on the list? Nik 18:41, 7 August 2007 (PDT)

Yes, I think. See:


Yesterday, I uploaded a periodic table in Wenedyk. Today, our friend and colleague User:Follow_by_white_rabbit wrote to me, that their number might be a tad too high, since in IB man hasn't landed on the moon yet, and computers might still not be strong enough for this kind of calculations. Do accelerators of elementary particles exist in IB? Is it possible that the number of elements known in IB would ranger 112 or even higher? And if not, which element would be the last known one? —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:38, 22 February 2008 (PST)

I know we often show science as retarded compare to ours but there is nothing in IB's history to prevent elemental research to be done. If anything, the lack of advance in some areas might mean a greater advance in some others. --Marc Pasquin 06:32, 24 February 2008 (PST)
That's very true. We know that airship technologies, electrical generation and railroads are far advanced from we know *here*. We know they had the Bomb *there*, so there's reason why chemistry and physics *there* can't be every bit as advanced as *here*. I think it's because they fly around in airships *there* -- because we've decided that some technologies that got left behind *here* get to the front ranks *there* -- that there is a stigma of retardation in IB science and technology. People *here*, when they hear the words airship and zeppelin, think first and formost of the Hindenburg. It's not like they picked up using airships in the 21st century after a long hiatus (like we're doing *here*!). It would be like saying the word "automobile" and thinking first of a Model A; or when hearing "locomotive", thinking of steam engines! Elemtilas 14:31, 24 February 2008 (PST)
Computers, satellites, and the Internet are somewhat "retarded", though, aren't they? Benkarnell 15:59, 24 February 2008 (PST)
Satellites and the rocketry they depend on certainly are; keeping in mind that the present day level of rocketry was obtained in the mid to late 1940s!
The computers *there* are "different", and so I've never really been convinced that they're all that behind us technologywise. I think it comes down to a quite different kind of processor architecture. Certainly, computers are not the ubiquitious little boxen they are *here*; so computer usage is certainly lagging, at least by the general population. Certainly, academics, medical practicioners, the military, government, researchers -- all of them are using networked computers on a daily basis. The "Internet" as a world-spanning community is certainly lagging, but only because consumer computer use is lagging! :) We know that they've got some high powered machines and there are some powerful networks -- I can remember writing about computer networks being used by medical researchers and practitioners. That would require some decent video capabilities plus the means of rapidly and easily transmitting data. The networks they have may be limited in scope, and may not be interconnected; but I think we'd not find them inadequate to any task we might put them to, given their scope. Elemtilas 19:37, 24 February 2008 (PST)
A remark to Elemtilas: It really seems a sign of technological backwardness that IB uses airship technology for (say) intercontinental passenger flights. But this does not mean that aeroplanes are not used. On the contrary - as fighter aircraft you practically have to use them instead of the much slower airships. But airships, of course, are also quite sophisticated. I think I contributed towards an explanation of why the public is against aeroplanes on the page about the Dornburg Disaster. Cheers! Kyrmse 05:28, 25 February 2008 (PST)
I'm not saying at all that science in IB is more backward than it is *here*... You ought to know me better! ;) I'm just saying that certain sciences are less developed, other sciences are better developed, and again other sciences are equally developed but differently. In this particular case I was wondering about chemistry. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 10:45, 25 February 2008 (PST)
I don't see airships as a sign of technological backwardness at all. That's a prejudice I would expect of someone from *here*, whose cutlture is 24/7/365, gotta-have-it-now, if-you-didn't-have-it-yesterday-you're-behind-the-curve, instant gratification, bigger and faster is better, super-sized and MacDonaldified. This is a cultural divice: IB simply isn't that way. Life is not quite so fast paced; business doesn't happen instantaneously. I think the fact that they use airships makes for one of the great symbols and metaphors for IB itself -- a familiar world that is at the same time utterly different and unexpected.
As for chemistry, I think I've already said that there's no reason it can't be every bit as advanced as *here*. Certainly, their materials science is advanced enough to create strong, light airship materials we can only dream of *here*. Who knows what applications that technology has morphed and trickled into. Who knows? They could have had transparent metals; chameleon skin plastics; ultra-thin anti-ballistic materials and like chemistries for years that we only see as experimental on the Discovery Channel or in the movies. Elemtilas 14:09, 25 February 2008 (PST)
BRAVO! My feelings precisely. But don't think I am being unduly quarrelsome or uncomprehending. Peace! (or Faq!, as they say in Old Bovlai). You put your finger exactly on one of the reasons for my passion for IB: Familiar, utterly different and unexpected, and going at a different pace. You know my methods, Watson ;-) Kyrmse 05:08, 26 February 2008 (PST)
No worries! My dear collegue, I didn't find you quarrelsome in the least! I understand that IB offers a somewhat "archaic" modernity. We had a row several years ago with someone who thought IB was far too medieval for his taste (or at least one particular corner of IB). Sometimes we just have to reminded that IB isn't to be compared with *here*. It's a secondary reality all its own. Elemtilas 18:18, 26 February 2008 (PST)

As a provocateur of this whole life discussion, I came to conclusion that, if all of what was said here is a broad point of view (witch actually is) maybe we should re conceder this issue in a different way for a beginning I would like to propose this article [1] Follow by white rabbit 08:42, 26 February 2008 (PST)

That sounds like a very interesting idea!
I also really like the fact that IB is different-- second everything Ronald said. My friend, a computer engineer, has become a big fan of IB and the computers in particular. He has told me all sorts of ideas for how IB can build its processing power on its current system, but is concerned that they will never reach the speed and power that we have *here*, but wants to see the IB people develop that... basically, I don't understand much of it, and I keep trying to get him to post on Conculture. Benkarnell 09:11, 26 February 2008 (PST)
I've heard of the Island of Stability before. Perhaps they've found a way to create stable high atomic number atoms? One could only speculate as to what their periodic table, and their chemistry in general, would look like if they were experienced with elements like Neofrancium-310!! Elemtilas 18:18, 26 February 2008 (PST)
Based on what I've read about the centers of research, I'd speculate that there might be a Dunmonium-184. Benkarnell 19:17, 26 February 2008 (PST)
Personal tools