Need a list of any unique substance you can think of....

[MWresearch]

Also valid for the list. There is actually the potential for something in the project to harness substances like boogers and snot and bile, it just has to be done in a manner that makes sense, which, you don't have to worry about. So semen and other sex-related stuff in particular is probably an exception, a "no we're never ever ever going to use that..." because the nature of the substance may attract both unwanted attention and anger people.

Edited April 21, 2015 by MWresearch

[Acme]

Flatus

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

As this is apparently "not strictly science" and seems to be some sort of list for a programming/web project I think this is better suited to the lounge.

 

 

I am getting flash-backs of DoodleGod

[DrP]

Fluff.

 

Belly button fluff in particular is beyond scientific explanation! ;-) Where does it come from!? No one knows! ;-)

[MWresearch]

Since the thread is not about the project but rather scientifically established substances and physical phenomena that exist in a repeatedly measurable way, which, without me specifying could be used for scientific research, it does still fit into the genre of science. But, I wouldn't care if it was moved to the lounge if you feel that strongly about it.

Edited April 21, 2015 by MWresearch

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Your thread is about an arbitrary list of things that your "average person" knows about. You're hardly interested in "scientifically established substances" (whatever that's supposed to mean) at all, or John Cuthber's suggestions wouldn't have been so disagreeable to you. This doesn't have anything to do with actual science, unless there's something you're not mentioning in this thread, so it hardly belongs in that part of the forum.

Furthermore, discussion about whether or not you can edit the OP or where this thread has been moved are not the topic of discussion. If you have a problem with anything of that nature, you're more than aware of where to take your complaints.

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

[MWresearch]

Not responding to any particular post, just wanted to describe a more scientific aspect of the list by saying that there exists such a job where physicists test the coefficients of friction between different common substances, sometimes for commercial use even. There also exists such a job where sound waves are tested on a variety of substances, both organic and inorganic for the purposes of finding harmful or beneficial effects or the limit of the compression waves they can handle before their structure starts to degerate. There exists chemists who test certain chemicals on a variety of average substances to determine if an average person could be harmed by them. Specifically, there are also chemists who do this for geology ad minerals, like for instance that pyrite decomposes into sulfuric acid. A list of many average substances such as this does not exist on the internet as far as I have found or I would not be here trying to add to it, so, this list may be of some use to people working on scientific or non-scientific projects. Specifically, I also do remember specifying standards that were not arbitrary which I also bind myself by, so as a note, any person has a chance to contribute to the list.

Edited April 22, 2015 by MWresearch

[hypervalent_iodine]

Chemists have very specific means of doing that and you can rest assured that a list that includes fire as a substance will be of absolutely no use to them.

[MWresearch]

Oh, a post I can respond to. Well in that case both your conclusions are illogical. The fact that fire isn't useful as a chemical to chemists mean it is not useful to anyone, and, you seem to have ignored the fact that more people than just chemists have use for the items on the list.

In addition to that, it is in fact extremely scientific that I am omly accepting items that have a confirmed relavence and repeated observation and review by a variety of humans over a period of time.

I aaid I didn't mind it being in the lounge, but I never said I didn't care about why. If it logically suits a field of science with relvence to a variety of physical substances and phenomena, it will receive the most appropriate attention there.

Edited April 22, 2015 by MWresearch

[Phi for All]

Oh, a post I can respond to. Well in that case both your conclusions are illogical. The fact that fire isn't useful as a chemical to chemists mean it is not useful to anyone, and, you seem to have ignored the fact that more people than just chemists have use for the items on the list.

In addition to that, it is in fact extremely scientific that I am omly accepting items that have a confirmed relavence and repeated observation and review by a variety of humans over a period of time.

I aaid I didn't mind it being in the lounge, but I never said I didn't care about why. If it logically suits a field of science with relvence to a variety of physical substances and phenomena, it will receive the most appropriate attention there.

 

The objection is not whether fire is useful. The objection is because fire isn't an item, it's an event. It happens when conditions are favorable for it, like lightning or a tornado.

[imatfaal]

...

In addition to that, it is in fact extremely scientific that I am omly accepting items that have a confirmed relavence and repeated observation and review by a variety of humans over a period of time....

 

 

 

...

Magnetic Monopole (magnet with only a north or a south)...

Neutronium...

Strange-matter...

[MWresearch]

 

The objection is not whether fire is useful. The objection is because fire isn't an item, it's an event. It happens when conditions are favorable for it, like lightning or a tornado.

Fire isn't a chemical, which, does not inhibit it from being a useful item on the list nor does it magically prevent other items on the list from being chemicals. I did not specify that items on the list were limited to chemicals and in more than one post I specified it could also be a physical phenomena or event with the same parameters. Chemical substances tend to be the main focus as they are more easily collectible, but there are other things the universe which take up physical space and interact with matter and energy and are commonly seen by different people which are not in of themselves chemical substances, like fire.

 

 

And do you have a problem with the fact that numerous people have reviewed information and observed data regarding magnetic monopoles, strange-matter and neutronium? As I said and you ignored, I will not accept substances that are made up out of thin air, they must be at the very least be accepted by science as being plausible before being subject to the parameters of whether or not the substance or material has been in any way assimilated into every day discussions and interest. For magnetic monopoles in particular, there is a back and fourth debate, I see some papers support them and others deny them with both sides being credible and making research efforts in labs on Earth for their position and I am fine with taking it off or keeping it based on any new information I find. But, you of all people implying neutronium and strange matter don't scientifically exist is frankly surprising and analogous to saying black holes don't exist. With their exceedingly high probability of existing based on observed and reviewed data, they are assumed to exist or be physically possible to create by the bulk of the scientific community and I therefore accept them as a physical material. Their position on the extremes of our knowledge has attracted attention which has allowed those materials to be known by a variety of people who do not specialize in those fields of physics. You can see those materials occasionally pop up in pop-science and news articles, sci-fi tv shows and games. Does that clear it up?

Edited April 22, 2015 by MWresearch

[Phi for All]

 

Fire isn't a chemical, which, does not inhibit it from being a useful item on the list nor does it magically prevent other items on the list from being chemicals. I did not specify that items on the list were limited to chemicals and in more than one post I specified it could also be a physical phenomena or event with the same parameters. Chemical substances tend to be the main focus as they are more easily collectible, but there are other things the universe which take up physical space and interact with matter and energy and are commonly seen by different people which are not in of themselves chemical substances, like fire.

 

Fire isn't a substance at all. You can't go out and get me a cup of fire, or a bag of hurricane, or a bushel of lightning. All these things are events which happen when many other factors are right, including the presence of other substances. You can't hold fire in your hand without having actual substances available as well.

[MWresearch]

 

Fire isn't a substance at all. You can't go out and get me a cup of fire, or a bag of hurricane, or a bushel of lightning. All these things are events which happen when many other factors are right, including the presence of other substances. You can't hold fire in your hand without having actual substances available as well.

I see the point you are trying to make, even though you could have a controlled combustion reaction contained inside of a cup without the presence of a solid. But, it is a particularly well known chain reaction, and from what I specified up to now I do not see a problem with it being on the list.

If you think it would be a good idea, since it is possible for the list to be edited at some point in the future, I could break down the list into physical materials and substances with another category for physical phenomena. It may clear up some confusion.

[Phi for All]

I see the point you are trying to make, even though you could have a controlled combustion reaction contained inside of a cup without the presence of a solid.

 

I didn't say it had to be a solid. Liquids and gases are substances too. Fire is not.

 

I only mention it because you do seem to be moving the goalposts around a bit, and it was mentioned by others. A list of unique substances shouldn't contain fire unless you're redefining the word substance. If you want to do that, it might be nice to know why the definition doesn't need precision the way most definitions in science do.

[MWresearch]

 

I didn't say it had to be a solid. Liquids and gases are substances too. Fire is not.

 

I only mention it because you do seem to be moving the goalposts around a bit, and it was mentioned by others. A list of unique substances shouldn't contain fire unless you're redefining the word substance. If you want to do that, it might be nice to know why the definition doesn't need precision the way most definitions in science do.

When I started out, it was my fault that I did not be more specific in a science forum, you are right to point out vagueness and I am right to specify what I meant. I was expecting more posts like the first few, sociably understandable, people who comprehend the type of list i compiled. But, I am on a science forum so I should have been more specific, the list will be updated when it is edited.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm telling you that I cannot think of a way in which your list could possibly be of use to chemists. Your one example of how it might be useful tells me that you have no idea what chemists actually do.

[Strange]

Now that this is in The Lounge, can I just say that this list would definitely be in the Top 10 Stupidest Lists Ever (that list would, of course, include itself).

[MWresearch]

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm telling you that I cannot think of a way in which your list could possibly be of use to chemists. Your one example of how it might be useful tells me that you have no idea what chemists actually do.

Aside from the fact that I already studied chemistry over multiple classes and used it for the construction of machines in engineering, the discrepancy is probably because I don't do a lot in chemistry, more physics, and I know for a fact that at the very least, people get paid money to test the coefficients of friction of different common substances. Furthermore, a list such as this does not publicly exist on the internet it seems, so, this site might as well be the first. If you would like some more strict guidelines then the staff could collaborate as to make it a sticky.

[studiot]

Now that this is in The Lounge, can I just say that this list would definitely be in the Top 10 Stupidest Lists Ever (that list would, of course, include itself).

 

Would that List be subject to Russell's Paradox?

 

Edited April 22, 2015 by studiot

[MWresearch]

Now that this is in The Lounge, can I just say that this list would definitely be in the Top 10 Stupidest Lists Ever (that list would, of course, include itself).

You're right, an inanimate list does not have a mind and thus it is unable to think at all, making it relatively stupid, without mental acuity. Quite an astute, intellectual and profound observation.

Edited April 22, 2015 by MWresearch

[hypervalent_iodine]

Aside from the fact that I already studied chemistry over multiple classes and used it for the construction of machines in engineering, the discrepancy is probably because I don't do a lot in chemistry, more physics, and I know for a fact that at the very least, people get paid money to test the coefficients of friction of different common substances. Furthermore, a list such as this does not publicly exist on the internet it seems, so, this site might as well be the first. If you would like some more strict guidelines then the staff could collaborate as to make it a sticky.

 

How does one calculate the coefficient of friction between fire and sunlight? Mountain and treasure? Liquid and....anything on that list? Can you see why I am struggling to see its usefulness?

 

Also, no. We are not making strict guidelines or rules for your own list, that's your job. And we sure aren't making this a sticky.

[Acme]

Honey

[MWresearch]

How does one calculate the coefficient of friction between fire and sunlight? Mountain and treasure? Liquid and....anything on that list? Can you see why I am struggling to see its usefulness?

No I really can't because you seem to be purposely ignoring the substances that such a calculation pertains to for some irrational reason.

 

Also, no. We are not making strict guidelines or rules for your own list, that's your job. And we sure aren't making this a sticky.

Well that's the shame, some other site will eventually, possibly not geared towards science and they will seep traffic from what would have otherwise helped this site and expose more people to in-depth science. But, I can see that diversifying and collaborating on something that clearly both layman and scientists can contribute to and discuss would be too progressive of you, too much in the interest of others and would deflect attention away from your superiority over all other beings as the empress of everything, clearly refraining is the better move for the site.

Honey

Also one I can add.

Edited April 23, 2015 by MWresearch

[Acme]

Tree Resin (used medicinally, used as sealant, adhesive, incense, perfume, etc. Note that resin is distinct from sap.)

 

Tree Bark (used medicinally as in Yew or Willow, used as building material as of Western Red Cedar, used as dye as in Alder. Cork is the bark of an Oak. Note bark is distinct from wood.)

Edited April 23, 2015 by Acme