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

[hypervalent_iodine]

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

 

I am pointing out the fact that many of the items are too general or completely irrelevant to the intended audience of this list. Yes, I picked some of the more obvious examples, but I could draw the same conclusion by pairing quite a large number of the items you've included.

 

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.

 

As far as I could see, based on your responses to John Cuthber, you are not interested in substances scientists or people from more specialised areas find intriguing. This isn't a matter of how progressive I am or am not, it is a matter of you not being able to clearly articulate how this list is to be used. You claimed earlier it would be useful to chemists. I am one and it isn't. You claimed that people get paid to calculate coefficients of friction and that they could find it useful, but clearly most of the items on that list would not be useful to them at all.

 

I ask again then: how do you intend people to be able to decipher and employ this list? How is it useful to, well, anyone?

[MWresearch]

I am pointing out the fact that many of the items are too general or completely irrelevant to the intended audience of this list. Yes, I picked some of the more obvious examples, but I could draw the same conclusion by pairing quite a large number of the items you've included.

With any amount of purpose, I simply have to put items on the list that fit the parameters, even if they are vague, nothing wrong with that an nothing I can do without adding more vagueness and unnecessary exceptions in the parameters. I can simply categorize different items as I already mentioned.

 

As far as I could see, based on your responses to John Cuthber, you are not interested in substances scientists or people from more specialised areas find intriguing. This isn't a matter of how progressive I am or am not, it is a matter of you not being able to clearly articulate how this list is to be used. You claimed earlier it would be useful to chemists. I am one and it isn't. You claimed that people get paid to calculate coefficients of friction and that they could find it useful, but clearly most of the items on that list would not be useful to them at all.

Based on my response to John, I am in fact interested in substances that specialized scientists come up with, but only as much as any other person's response, they must follow the parameters the same as everyone else. It is simply the case that they may be less likely to contribute as much as other members because their dedication to a specific area of science must come at the cost of learning other things, like modern culture, which, seems to have been established as a problem for some. I also cannot logically agree that most items would not be useful to a variety of scientists. Obviously, fire has its uses, glass has its uses, rocks have their uses, plasma has its uses, electricity has its uses, energy has its uses, superfluid, different oils, water, wood and many other items have their uses.

You also only work on a specific type of chemistry currently, likely for only a specific company for an extended period of time. It is in no way logical for you to assume you represent all chemists.

 

I ask again then: how do you intend people to be able to decipher and employ this list? How is it useful to, well, anyone?

Simply put, this list is meant to act as a pre-made brainstorm, saving people time and organizing items in one place if they want a list of more commonly known substances and phenomena and possibly exposing people to new substances and phenomena they somehow never heard of, allowing them to learn if they choose to research further.

Edited April 23, 2015 by MWresearch

[Acme]

Pumice

[hypervalent_iodine]

That's doesn't answer my question.

 

Also, I would think that things such as fire are useful in one of those incredibly obvious ways that rather negates the need to consult a list.

[Acme]

Coal

[hypervalent_iodine]

I should also add, I am not asking you how individual items on your list are useful. I am asking you how the list itself is useful.

[MWresearch]

That's doesn't answer my question.

The question has been answered, you only won't publicly acknowledge it.

 

Also, I would think that things such as fire are useful in one of those incredibly obvious ways that rather negates the need to consult a list.

Like I said, with rules that I hold even myself to, I must put items on the list that fit the parameters, even if they are vague or blatantly obvious. But, since something like fire is so exceedingly well-known, it shouldn't be difficult to overlook.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Please see my above post. You have not answered my question.

[MWresearch]

Please see my above post. You have not answered my question.

Which I already answered, in the simplest and foremost response, it is a pre-made brainstorm. As far as I know, there is no need for further specification. Perhaps in your clearly superior being as an empress of everything, there is some extra dimension of the information in the question which I cannot see.

[Acme]

Sinew

[hypervalent_iodine]

Which I already answered, in the simplest and foremost response, it is a pre-made brainstorm. As far as I know, there is no need for further specification. Perhaps in your clearly superior being as an empress of everything, there is some extra dimension of the information in the question which I cannot see.

 

I'm sorry, but that really isn't an answer. Calling it a pre-made brainstorm is just another way of saying that it's a pointless list of arbitrary things. What is it a brainstorm for? What kind of problems would a person need to have answered for them to need this list? How is this list useful?

[MWresearch]

I'm sorry, but that really isn't an answer. Calling it a pre-made brainstorm is just another way of saying that it's a pointless list of arbitrary things. What is it a brainstorm for? What kind of problems would a person need to have answered for them to need this list? How is this list useful?

When I look up brainstorm in the dictionary I do not find "pointless list of arbitrary things." Sorry, you are incorrect.

[hypervalent_iodine]

When I look up brainstorm in the dictionary I do not find "pointless list of arbitrary things." Sorry, you are incorrect.

My point is that calling it that is vague and not in any way an answer to my very direct and simple questions.

[Acme]

Rust

[MWresearch]

My point is that calling it that is vague and not in any way an answer to my very direct and simple questions.

Except I did not call the list vague, I said there are some items on the list which may be vague. There is a difference between "all" and "some."

As I said, there are items which may be vague or blatantly obvious but still fit the parameters, so I put them on.

[Acme]

Ceramics

[hypervalent_iodine]

Except I did not call the list vague, I said there are some items on the list which may be vague. There is a difference between "all" and "some." As I said, there are items which may be vague or blatantly obvious but still fit the parameters, so I put them on.

 

I know you didn't. I did.

 

You still haven't answered my questions.

 

A reminder of my questions:

 

What is it a brainstorm for? What kind of problems would a person need to have answered for them to need this list? How is this list useful?

[MWresearch]

I know you didn't. I did.

 

You still haven't answered my questions.

 

A reminder of my questions:

 

These questions have already been answered. If you have further misunderstanding, I suggest looking up the words "breanstorm," "save," "organize" and "time."

[hypervalent_iodine]

These questions have already been answered. If you have further misunderstanding, I suggest looking up the words "breanstorm," "save," "organize" and "time."

You really haven't, but I will try to make myself clearer.

 

Saying that it is a pre-made brainstorm fails as an explanation, because usually when people are brainstorming, they do so with a point or end goal in mind. Indeed, I can think of no example where that wouldn't be the case. It makes no sense to do so without a purpose in mind, which is why I asked you what it is a brainstorm for.

 

And still, you have not even attempted my last two questions. I am especially interested in an answer to my second one.

[Strange]

Adjectives that can describe very unique substances, structures and events

 

Arbitrary

Generic

Subjective

Stupid

Pointless

Random

Meaningless

Except I did not call the list vague, I said there are some items on the list which may be vague. There is a difference between "all" and "some."

As I said, there are items which may be vague or blatantly obvious but still fit the parameters, so I put them on.

 

The problem is not that items on the list are "vague", it is that the defintion of the list is vague, undefined, arbitrary and entirely subjective. You suggest that the items should be "unique" in some way, but there is a massive amount of overlap and duplication so none of them are unique in any meaningful way.

 

For example you have the following items, all of which could be covered by the first item (or several of the others): Mineral, Mountain, Lava (or magma), Mud, Ophiolite Crust, Radioactive Material, Sand, Shale. And these could be described by one or more of the following "unique" adjectives from your list (and others): Amorphous, Ancient, Atomic, Changing, Eroded, Heavy, Igneous, Molten, Plentiful, Primordial, Undulating.

 

You also have some made-up words in the list.

 

This list is as useful as writing a program that picks random words from a dictionary. Your attempts to justify it by referring to non-existent or poorly-defined "parameters" makes it clear that the entire enterprise is arbitrary and meaningless.

 

[studiot]

One thing that has not been entirely clear to me is whether you are making any distinction between collective nouns or individual nouns and if so on what basis?

[MWresearch]

You really haven't, but I will try to make myself clearer.

Saying that it is a pre-made brainstorm fails as an explanation, because usually when people are brainstorming, they do so with a point or end goal in mind. Indeed, I can think of no example where that wouldn't be the case. It makes no sense to do so without a purpose in mind, which is why I asked you what it is a brainstorm for.

And still, you have not even attempted my last two questions. I am especially interested in an answer to my second one.

I don't know what you fascination is with denial, I gave you a clear answer more than once that you are purposely disregarding and to be frank you may be violating the forum rules by acting as such. Whether you like it or not, the answer I supplied fits the parameters of the question and it has been answered. It doesn't matter if it's not an answer you do not like, it does not matter if certain random people have alternative motives, it is still an answer.

 

 

Arbitrary

Generic

Subjective

Stupid

Pointless

Random

Meaningless

 

The problem is not that items on the list are "vague", it is that the defintion of the list is vague, undefined, arbitrary and entirely subjective. You suggest that the items should be "unique" in some way, but there is a massive amount of overlap and duplication so none of them are unique in any meaningful way.

 

For example you have the following items, all of which could be covered by the first item (or several of the others): Mineral, Mountain, Lava (or magma), Mud, Ophiolite Crust, Radioactive Material, Sand, Shale. And these could be described by one or more of the following "unique" adjectives from your list (and others): Amorphous, Ancient, Atomic, Changing, Eroded, Heavy, Igneous, Molten, Plentiful, Primordial, Undulating.

 

You also have some made-up words in the list.

 

This list is as useful as writing a program that picks random words from a dictionary. Your attempts to justify it by referring to non-existent or poorly-defined "parameters" makes it clear that the entire enterprise is arbitrary and meaningless.

As I already pointed, I took too much liberty in assuming too many people would understand the concept of the list by means of sociability. As I also said, the list will be modified to reflect a more strict categorical organization in the future.

One thing that has not been entirely clear to me is whether you are making any distinction between collective nouns or individual nouns and if so on what basis?

Well, with the same parameters that apply to the materials and phenomena, the standard is any adjective that can physically describe those materials or phenomena.

Edited April 23, 2015 by MWresearch

[Acme]

Starch

[John Cuthber]

I'm sorry, but that really isn't an answer. Calling it a pre-made brainstorm is just another way of saying that it's a pointless list of arbitrary things. What is it a brainstorm for? What kind of problems would a person need to have answered for them to need this list? How is this list useful?

Hypervalent Iodine isn't the only one to have asked that.

I asked essentially the same question and it really hasn't been answered (in spite of MW Research's claims.

 

 

 

On the whole the list is so subjective that it's like asking someone to think of a number, then telling them they are wrong if they don't come up with the number you had in mind.

 

Perhaps we could return to basics.

You started the thread with "For a specific project where I seem to have exhausted most possibilities, "

What's the project?

If we know that, we can target our ideas better.

 

So...

What is this thread for?

Is it just a trolling exercise?

Edited April 23, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MWresearch]

 

 

So...

What is this thread for?

Is it just a trolling exercise?

I provided an answer multiple times, you simply have to read the recent posts that contain it.