Acreator

But isn't existence defined as: the state or fact of existing; being. (Dictionary.com) In which case, a hole, in and of itself, it cannot exist because it has no physical being (since we have not ascended yet, there's not much else for it to exist with) The entity that was where the hole resides now had physical being, but it went away. We don't move a box from A to B and then look at A and say "Look at that hole" where the box once was, it is empty space, the box is no longer there. The same for a ground-hole, dirt/stone/concrete has been moved and now there is empty space. Keep discussing calmly

A hole is not an entity. A hole is the absence of an entity therefore the concept of a hole exists, but a hole entity does not. The grand canyon exists, and truthfully even I think of it as a hole that is an entity, but objectivity, the Grand Canyon is just another synonym for hole. It is really the walls and floor of the Canyon that we mean, not the hole itself. pfft In the case of donut-holes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tikcuUnbg0I. we can see that a there is an entity in the center, and then the entity is removed, thus creating a donut-hole. Unless we are talking a black hole, but again, this plays with the understanding of language. Excuse me, but what is a shaw?

What is existence? For example, we might say that a unicorn exists; therefore, in our understanding of the nature of existence; the unicorn has mass, has dimensions, has color. But unicorns do not exist (as far as we know), so they do not have mass, dimensions or color. However, consider a fictional universe. We might say that in... Harry Potter for example, unicorns exist (which they do) The unicorn would have mass, dimensions and color in the H.P.U. But does it exist? It exists as an idea, but can an idea contain physical properties? Please, discuss calmly.

I have, both at school and on online forums. It is less noticeable in school but the teachers like to support one another, even if the others are complete nobs. They don't necessarily stifle the students because of it but they do like to overlook one another's transgressions and support nonetheless. But I have found it quite prevalent in online forums. You go to have a calm conversation about a subject and then some blowhard that's been there since Noah went to Las Vegas with Jesus and OD'd, comes along and starts throwing pointless facts at you that don't even pertain to the subject at hand. it is quite disturbing to find groups and individuals like this.

I think what @Reg Prescott is trying to say here @beecee. Is why do you see space and time as separate from space-time. or better yet, why do you distinguish space and time from space-time. as you said but emphasizing the last part of the space-time definition. You said that space is the space between you and the TV, and as space is considered to be measured in length, width and loaf, it fits into the framework of space-time, so why bother distinguishing between space and space-time at all when space-time does a better job at describing stuff anyway. Correct me if I am wrong @Reg Prescott

The thing is, objectivley, a hole is an abstract idea. Even in our language, what we call a hole is not an entity, it is the place where an entity once was. So a hole cannot have temperature or color because it is not an entity in and of itself. However if you look at it as science, you can say that a hole, unless in vacuum, has the temperature of the air around it, and it's color would be that of the gas in it (Assuming that the hole is on Earth).

g

The problem is that metallic hydrogen cannot be a metal, it said in the article that it would exist in a liquid state, as the gravitational pressure would be too great.

Well, actually you said that The thing is that metal is not covalently bonded, it has an electron cloud to bond it. Although you could consider an electron cloud to be an extreme version of covalent bonding as all electrons are shared equally with all atoms. The point is that a metal vapor, unless there is a high pressure (allowing for collision theory), would form free floating atoms because there is reason for the individual atoms to stay together, there is no individual covalent bonding. And yes, Metallic Hydrogen was theorized to exist: "Metallic hydrogen is a phase of hydrogen in which it behaves like an electrical conductor. This phase was predicted in 1935 on theoretical grounds by Eugene Wigner and Hillard Bell Huntington. At high pressure and temperatures, metallic hydrogen might exist as a liquid rather than a solid, and researchers think it is present in large quantities in the hot and gravitationally compressed interiors of Jupiter, Saturn, and in some extrasolar planets." - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen The only reason Hydrogen is in Group 1 is because in it's non-ionic state, it has 1 electron and 1 proton. "Hydrogen can be placed in both group 1 and group 17 because its electronic configuration is similar to both the groups. Like group I elements, hydrogen has only one electron in its valence shell. Thus it can lose an electron to achieve a stable configuration like alkali metals and hence can be placed in group 1 (alkali metals). However, like group 17 elements, it requires only electron to complete its valence shell, thus it can also gain an electron." - Kirti Gogia, https://m.meritnation.com/ask-answer/question/why-hydrogen-can-be-placed-in-either-group1-or-group-17-in-t/periodic-classification-of-elements/3304042 Take a gander a simple search collection of images from "Periodic Table" in Google Images, the last image in particular:

Under what classification system is Hydrogen considered a "metal"? I assume that the only way it would be included is if it shared some properties with metals, in which case, which properties. Wouldn't most metal vapors be free molecules, considering the temperature required for a metal to become a vapor. Also, since metals rely on an electron cloud to connect to each other, at the temperature needed for a vapor, the electrons would be moving so fast that they wouldn't be able to latch on to other metals.

Thanks Sensei, I was hoping we could all contribute, but as you say, there are some basics that need to be addressed. While a silicon-based life- form might not have similar functions to us, if we want them to be land-based, gas-breathing, gas-exhaling, liquid-ingesting beings, there has to be some similarities in function. I was thinking about Silicon Tetrafluoride as an exhalation, as it seems to be the only Si-gas at our temperature, and might still be a gas at the low temperatures needed for the organisms. With a melting point of -90oC and a boiling point of -81oC SiF4 seems like a decent bet, if we are saying they live in a super cold environment. However they don't have to exhale silicon. Our process of exhaling carbon seems a large waste of usable materials. They could keep all the silicon they ingest and just get bigger as they age because every molecule would be used to build more, however there might be some waste in any excrement or possibly for other reasons. Who knows!

Silicon based life, but if you be so kind as to explain why silicone life would need extreme heat compared to silicon needing cold. Sorry if I seem ignorant, I mainly want to learn as much about this as I can, and I want the data on this thread.

"Live long and prosper!"

< I will be posting this Topic in the Organic Chemistry section as well, it is up to moderators or anyone else to get rid of it in any section. > Alright, I know there are a lot people that believe that Silicon-based life is not possible, and there is science to prove a lot of it. However, it is an interesting field and I think we shouldn't discredit it. While it might be improbable for an organism to evolve to be entirely silicon-based (the planet might have to be 1000 C just to start trying) we have the advantage of computers and molecule visualization programs to let us think them up. Now, my proposition is this, if there is anyone who believes that we could try and design Si-life, I invite you to join my thought process and start thinking of how it could happen. Anyone who does not believe in it, please don't slam my idea, just give me constructive criticism or slam in such a way that I don't understand (not hard btw! ). I think we should start with either an autotroph or really basic cell level, in which case, a deep investigation into Archaea and Prokaryotes may be in order. I hope some of you are interested!

< I will be posting this Topic in the Inorganic Chemistry section as well, it is up to moderators or anyone else to get rid of it in any section. > Alright, I know there are a lot people that believe that Silicon-based life is not possible, and there is science to prove a lot of it. However, it is an interesting field and I think we shouldn't discredit it. While it might be improbable for an organism to evolve to be entirely silicon-based (the planet might have to be 1000 C just to start trying) we have the advantage of computers and molecule visualization programs to let us think them up. Now, my proposition is this, if there is anyone who believes that we could try and design Si-life, I invite you to join my thought process and start thinking of how it could happen. Anyone who does not believe in it, please don't slam my idea, just give me constructive criticism or slam in such a way that I don't understand (not hard btw! ) I think we should start with either an autotroph or really basic cell level, in which case, a deep investigation into Archaea and Prokaryotes may be in order. I hope some of you are interested!

It is -190 kj/mol Because 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O H= -572 kj/mol 2H2O2 -> 2H2 + 2O2 H= 382 kj/mol 2H2 + 2O2 + 2H2O -> 2H2O2 +2H2 + O2 H= 190 kj/mol 2H2O2 -> O2 + 2H2O H= -190 kj/mol -572+382+190-190= -190kj/mol