Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 5:23 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
#1
Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
For example I am certain that there is a different molecular arrangement between non life carbon based structures, and the extremely dynamic flexible amino acids that make up carbon based life. That part I am certain I am getting correct.

And also, the elements can also have each, several isotopes depending on the element. I am also certain I am correct about that.

But here IS where I am confused. Somebody pointed out to me isotopes do not matter but it is the volume of carbon. This is confusing to me and I want to get that part right so I am not being inaccurate so some stupid fundy can say, "You got that wrong, so my flood mythology is correct".

If I am misunderstanding isotopes please correct me.

For example and unfortunately this is a true story. There is an inside joke between biochemists playing of the scientific chemical formula for H20 which is chemically called dihydrogen monoxide. Some stupid idiots took that seriously and wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide because they didn't understand it was the chemical name for WATER. All they saw was "monoxide" and freaked out and wanted that dangerous monoxide out of there water supply. 

So I really do not mind being corrected about isotopes, I simply want to understand the distinction. And please dumb it down for me. I cant do the chemical formulas, but I can understand overall concepts. Just like I cannot build a car from scratch by myself, but I do understand the principle of how a combustion engine works.
Reply
#2
RE: Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
(July 8, 2022 at 4:34 am)Brian37 Wrote: For example I am certain that there is a different molecular arrangement between non life carbon based structures, and the extremely dynamic flexible amino acids that make up carbon based life. That part I am certain I am getting correct.

And also, the elements can also have each, several isotopes depending on the element. I am also certain I am correct about that.

But here IS where I am confused. Somebody pointed out to me isotopes do not matter but it is the volume of carbon. This is confusing to me and I want to get that part right so I am not being inaccurate so some stupid fundy can say, "You got that wrong, so my flood mythology is correct".

If I am misunderstanding isotopes please correct me.

I think you're asking about radiocarbon dating. If so, then both the isotope AND the amount of that isotope matter very much. Most radiocarbon dating is done by determining the amount of a specific isotope of carbon in the sample being tested. This is usually (but not always) carbon14, since the decay rates are well known. There's also a process called 'isotopic fractionation' which uses other carbon isotopes.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#3
RE: Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
(July 8, 2022 at 4:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(July 8, 2022 at 4:34 am)Brian37 Wrote: For example I am certain that there is a different molecular arrangement between non life carbon based structures, and the extremely dynamic flexible amino acids that make up carbon based life. That part I am certain I am getting correct.

And also, the elements can also have each, several isotopes depending on the element. I am also certain I am correct about that.

But here IS where I am confused. Somebody pointed out to me isotopes do not matter but it is the volume of carbon. This is confusing to me and I want to get that part right so I am not being inaccurate so some stupid fundy can say, "You got that wrong, so my flood mythology is correct".

If I am misunderstanding isotopes please correct me.

I think you're asking about radiocarbon dating. If so, then both the isotope AND the amount of that isotope matter very much. Most radiocarbon dating is done by determining the amount of a specific isotope of carbon in the sample being tested. This is usually (but not always) carbon14, since the decay rates are well known. There's also a process called 'isotopic fractionation' which uses other carbon isotopes.

Boru

Ok so this is half and half understanding and misunderstanding on my part.

So that idiot who was claiming isotopes don't matter at all, he is full of shit because context does matter. It does depending on the context we are talking about. Thank you, I knew I wasn't going crazy.

An aside, every time I figure out what atomic weight is, I remember for a while, then forget. I hate that.
Reply
#4
RE: Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
(July 8, 2022 at 4:52 am)Brian37 Wrote:
(July 8, 2022 at 4:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think you're asking about radiocarbon dating. If so, then both the isotope AND the amount of that isotope matter very much. Most radiocarbon dating is done by determining the amount of a specific isotope of carbon in the sample being tested. This is usually (but not always) carbon14, since the decay rates are well known. There's also a process called 'isotopic fractionation' which uses other carbon isotopes.

Boru

Ok so this is half and half understanding and misunderstanding on my part.

So that idiot who was claiming isotopes don't matter at all, he is full of shit because context does matter. It does depending on the context we are talking about. Thank you, I knew I wasn't going crazy.

An aside, every time I figure out what atomic weight is, I remember for a while, then forget. I hate that.

The claim that 'isotopes don't matter at all' is simply wrong. You need to use isotopes that have a half-life appropriate for whatever you're testing. For example, carbon14 has a half-life of 5700 years, which makes it useful for dating things like bones, clothing, wooden artifacts, etc., but makes it all but useless for dating things like rocks (there are isotopes of other elements used for that).

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#5
RE: Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
I love this chemistry joke.

Two guys walk into a bar, the first guy asks for a glass of H2O, the second guy says I'll have H2O2 and he died. 

I'd tell you more chemistry jokes, but the best ones are already Argon.

What is a pallbearer's favorite element? Barium.

A neutron goes in to a bar, orders a drink, the neutron asks, "How much", Bartender responds, "For you? No charge."

And another cornball science joke that goes around.

"Never trust an atom, they make up everything."
Reply
#6
RE: Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
This idiot keeps playing shell games with the word isotopes. 

You have the same family of atom, you can, for example call carbon 12, carbon 13 and carbon 14. The definition I get is that it is a different atomic mass in terms of neutrons, but the same number of particles of protons and electrons. So yea, isotopes are like the atom family being the same auto dealership but the FORD F150 being the same atom family as the Ford Focus. 

But this idiot is not understanding me.

Him, "You have the same carbon in you that a diamond has in it".


WAY TO MISS THE FUCKING POINT!

There is still no magical world where a diamond will suddenly give birth to a tardigrade, t rex, much less a human.

The molecular arrangement of a diamond is different than the molecular arrangement as the flexible  double helix carbon based life we call DNA/RNA. 

And the bullshit that carbon emissions from burning hydrocarbons is good for plants is also bullshit. While a plant can absorb the emissions, it can also kill the plant, it is certainly not good for fostering efficient photosynthesis. Just like alcohol under certain conditions when consuming won't hurt you, but too much consumption or purely high potency in proof is more risky and some cases flat out deadly. 

Its like when plant lovers might stupidly think you can cant kill a cactus, yes, yes you can. My x wife and I did just that.
Reply
#7
RE: Please do correct me if I am getting this wrong.
An aside, I decided, because of this, look up orders of magnitude when splitting up minutes to seconds to nanoseconds..

Just a nanosecond alone freaks me out because it its a billionth of a second. Ok, that is freakishly fast right? Fuck no, not compared to a yoctosecond. Kind of like comaring our sun to a super massive black hole. but in reverse in the micro time. 

I may not understand the math as to how to determine the magnatude, but I do know that a billionth of a second beats a mere second. 

I guess you could compare it to the regular second laypeople think of being the Galapagos Tortious and the yactosecond being the Road Runner on meth. 

It freaks me out how you can spit time up in such a small freakish way. Now I am really getting freaked out. In a good way. 

There is also greater negative magnitude than reducing time to "Planck Time" I have heard that before. But fuck no, that is not the smallest you can divide time either. 

But according to this wiki article, the smallest magnitude in dividing up time is 10^- 60th as our best data observations or an "icososecod" 

So what the fuck is that, The Road Runner on meth and bath salts and speed and cocaine?

And the poor old regular second is saying to it's self  "I am too old for this shit."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders...a%20second.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Did Hubble can it wrong? little_monkey 24 3733 November 4, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Last Post: Surgenator
  Not sure if this is the correct folder.. lifesagift 14 1978 October 11, 2014 at 6:52 pm
Last Post: lifesagift
  God vs Big Bang- Are either correct? sswhateverlove 132 20866 September 15, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Was Newton wrong? little_monkey 7 2533 May 31, 2013 at 1:14 am
Last Post: Colanth
  Galileo was wrong, the Church was right Entropist 27 10690 September 18, 2010 at 7:48 am
Last Post: Zen Badger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)