JaKiri

Bad experiment that verifies it != Proof that it's not true

I prefer my fantabomb.

Bear in mind that we don't have sufficient evidence to state that; remember that both General Relativity and the Standard Model (oh, and the Superstring theories) assume gravity propogates at the speed of light.

Yes.

Weeeeeell there is a theorised 'island of stability' about 140ish, but you're right about enough not being produced.

Opinion more like

+en. Typographical error.

The latter, as things stand

A taylor series assumes you can express a function as an infinite sum of the differations of the function, basically.

English Literature

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this model in place for only a few years at most? ps. Learn some QM.

Look. The reactions that can take place with metals are inherently limited because metals cannot form chains in the same way as carbon. This isn't something we've 'missed', it's a theoretical impossibility, and given the amount of research into this kind of thing, I'm going to say it's a physical impossibility too. You're using a very off version of the scientific method.

It's e = 1/0! + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! (etc), which is something called a Taylor series; you get a good value out pretty quickly too.

WHY THE **** WOULD THERE BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT CHEMISTRY (and hence physics) ON ANOTHER PLANET? That's, even for here, one of the most stupid suggestions I have ever heard.

I doubt there could be a metal based organism. This is simply because of the limited number of reactions possible. If you compare the number of possible reactions for metals (ALL metals), and those of carbon, the number of possible carbon reactions dwarfs the metallic ones by several orders of magnitude.

Well, that was my point about differing predictions; you have to make some predictions which are different from those which the accepted model makes, in order to distinguish them. Otherwise, it's just a case of unnecessarily multiplying entities, and so Occam's Razor precludes it.

Who's to say they don't? (No idea personally)

What do you mean, what level of algebra? It's a language you have to be fluent in.

Algebra's obviously used, it's the language. Calculus is used most, as it's the most useful. But quite a few obscure areas are used in physics.

If you can't explain all observed phenomenon (within the accuracy of the experiment), and make predictions, then you are not presenting a scientific theory. ps. GR and QM have NOTHING which support your 'theory' (in fact, quite the opposite) Superstring theory hasn't even decided which number of dimensions it likes best, let alone been completed And I have no idea what 'G-D' is, apart from 'General Discussions' [edit] And as to full explanation of observed phenomenon, I obviously mean WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE THEORY.

There's no way it can be done under current models.

Thomas Young: Famous throughout A-level physics as the man who created the Young Modulus.

Don't hate me because I'm right. ps. If we're including Mathematicians, I'd have to go for Leonard Euler.

That's also a stupid question, because the only way to judge them is by their results, which isn't a good indication of 'intellegence'

What you see as green, I could see as purple. But since we're taught the words 'green' and 'purple' with reference to the colours (THEYRE JUST LABLES) everyone thinks 'green' is the colour they see when they look at a 'green' object. This could explain people's fashion sense.