Skip to main content
22 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 9, 2018 at 20:27 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck stuff like TK should just be asserted. Did anyone whine/complain about Star Wars not explaining The Force? No. Did anyone whine/complain that ST:TOS didn't explain dylithium crystals? No. If you're a competent enough writer, we'll suspend disbelief and just accept that Lerite gives animals TK.
Feb 9, 2018 at 19:33 comment added user64742 @RonJohn yeah I mean while I did have to bend over backwards to make telekinesis plausible at least a being that massive would plausibly create local distortions. I mean, the fact that it doesn't blow up earth or rip it to pieces by its presence is amazing, but I suppose someone more familiar with the exact manner spacetime distorts could say something meaningful.
Feb 9, 2018 at 14:12 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck yeah, the problem with writing science fiction now is that Science knows so much about physics, chemistry, biology, etc, and the people who read science fiction know enough to smell rank bogosity in science fiction. Thus... midichlorians, and repulsorlift. Worse, the people writing SF have so little clue about the S part of DF. Very, very sad.
Feb 9, 2018 at 7:11 comment added user64742 @RonJohn I agree with 90% of what you are saying. My point to the asker was that changing the table does nothing but alter history or propagate quack science. If you want something else, than the table would have to become meaningless in their fictional universe. (i.e. a 4th subatomic particle with weird properties rendering the table near useless in such a universe).
Feb 9, 2018 at 7:08 comment added user64742 i.e. there isn't a copy of the periodic table engraved into the fabric of the universe secretly controlling physics. It's just an organizational construct, if not one of the most important organizational constructs. Just like most concepts it is man-made. The concept of such a table is not inherent nor having any effect on science.
Feb 9, 2018 at 7:06 comment added user64742 @RonJohn ok, that makes sense historically but my point was that it is completely arbitrary. I was not aware that the table predated the discovery of those particles (or at least that the discovery of the atom was not within a few years of the discovery or suspicion of the existence of subatomic particles). Hence my statement. Once again though. It's just meant as a point of how little the table actually has an effect on the universe. We might use it for science, but the universe does not refer to it. In this sense, it is manmade.
Feb 9, 2018 at 7:02 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck you wrote "We could've easily defined elements by neutron or electron count." in the Answer, and "the periodic table is a man-made construct" in a comment. Since the periodic table (and thus "elements") was devised before we knew about protons and electrons, the first statement is wrong. And because the Periodic Table was organized by chemical similarities due to observation, your second statement is -- while technically true -- manifestly and deeply wrong.
Feb 9, 2018 at 6:16 comment added user64742 @RonJohn How does that in any way make me unaware of chemistry? Asker seemed to claim that altering the table altered physics and it doesn't. It's just a fancy chart that we find really useful. Changing the chart itself or making a different version won't produce supernatural results. Should I not be pointing that out to the asker?
Feb 9, 2018 at 6:14 comment added user64742 @RonJohn you are completely missing the point of my statement. The question literally states "But could I just replace an already existing element on the table, such as iron or a lesser known metal like vanadium? The new element would take on the atomic number of Vanadium. Is this possible?". The answer is yes, but the point is that any alteration to the periodic table does nothing. The asker was confusing it with being a man-mande model of scientific phenomena with it actually being the cause of science. My response was to give an absurd example pointing out their flawed reasoning.
Feb 9, 2018 at 6:10 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck "the periodic table is a man-made construct." You say that as if the organization is arbitrary. That's completely wrong. It follows nature. If you were as aware of chemistry as you say you are of physics, you'd know that.
Feb 9, 2018 at 6:07 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck the first scientist to organize them in by proton would be lauded as a Hero Of Science.
Feb 9, 2018 at 6:06 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck sure we could do it. But there's a reason that the Periodic Table as stuck around, and why we define elements by the number of protons. Not just because it works (after all, the Ptolemaic System worked quite well), but it simplifies chemistry, biology, geology and probably physics. By example: there are 15 isotopes of carbon. They'd all need separate names, even though, chemically, they all work exactly alike. Every isotope of every other element would need a name, too. The 88 million known organic chemicals would grow exponentially.
Feb 9, 2018 at 5:55 history edited user64742 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 141 characters in body
Feb 9, 2018 at 5:53 comment added user64742 @RonJohn I agree it is illogical from our perspective, but there is nothing stopping a man from doing it. That was my point. It won't produce supernatural effects if one does it.
Feb 9, 2018 at 5:46 comment added user64742 @RonJohn true, but the periodic table is a man-made construct. I am well aware of the physics. I'm saying that nothing inherent forced a man to build it that way. Hence, randomly replacing an element with another or changing the periodic table does nothing but change our organizational technique. If we named them isotopes rather than atoms, we wouldn't be wrong as the words would just have different meanings. Like I said, it would be an alternate history.
Feb 8, 2018 at 18:19 comment added RonJohn @TheGreatDuck "If someone chose to name elements as atoms with similar electron counts, why would that be in any way wrong?" Atoms gain and lose electrons on a distressingly regular basis. (It is, in fact, one way that compounds are formed, and what makes electricity works.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table
Feb 8, 2018 at 17:02 comment added Shyassasain @TheGreatDuck Well my first solution was that there'd be a mineral/element that emits a telekinetic field, which is abundant, non radioactive, and can be incorporated into biology, but I didn't want to just say "AND THEN THERE WAS LERITE" since we already know most (if not all) of the elements that can exist on an earth like planet. Your answer isn't wrong though. Imaginative answers are always welcome : p
Feb 8, 2018 at 16:54 comment added Shyassasain Ok Well the super giant telekinetic symbiotic creature you're describing is certainly a whole lot cooler than a little particle XD. You should write a book about that! Thanks for a great answer and imaginative solution : p
Feb 8, 2018 at 15:53 comment added user64742 @ThorstenS. did I not come up with a scientifically plausible way for an organism to have telekinesis?
Feb 8, 2018 at 15:52 comment added user64742 @ThorstenS. Really? If someone chose to name elements as atoms with similar electron counts, why would that be in any way wrong? I'm not saying to do so now. I'm saying that if that were how it was defined it wouldn't change physics. It would be weird, but nothing special would happen. Note, the op is NOT asking how to make up an element. They are asking how to achieve: "This element (we'll call it Lerite) is going to act sort of like a magnet,but instead of magnetic force it's a different but similar force, allowing organisms to use telekinesis.". What the OP wants is telekinesis.
Feb 8, 2018 at 15:41 comment added Thorsten S. -1 We could've easily defined elements by neutron or electron count. No, we could not. The chemical similarity of an element and the reaction properties are explicitly defined by proton count. Stripping or adding electrons happens all the time (Hint: electricity). While neutrons do change physical properties (melting point etc.), they have neglible influence on chemical properties. The rest of your text does not answer the question at all.
Feb 8, 2018 at 6:42 history answered user64742 CC BY-SA 3.0