My goodness, so much to address, and I have to get ready for bed in an hour, lol. Curse you life, taking over!!
Bob:Kind of what I was going for, with Scotty's intertwined with yours, almost the same idea. Although I meant using gold to get more gold, not the other way around. In terms of equivalency, what about catalysts? They aren't destroyed, but are used in any reaction they're in. Why don't those count for CoM? My chem teacher never really explained that, just that they don't. Like the titanium [whatever]-ide in laundry detergent.
Scotty: that's more or less what I mean, making them come from something else, but having whatever the host turns into, to be something stable enough not to steal it's atoms back.
U:Did you know that modern chemistry was derived from alchemy, etymologically and conceptually? Alchemists ("-") were commonly referred to as chemists, and their study became known as "chemist-ry", thus why we have our chemistry today, since around 1600's with Bohr's (?..it's been a while) "new" model of the atom.
Pete:But, we have particle colliders/accelerators and we can almost reach absolute zero (Kelvin) ((off by about 5 degrees, something amazing)), why wouldn't we be able to generate enough energy, especially if that fusion reactor that so many nations are pumping money into comes to fruition and works?
Thor:It's late-ish (or getting back from school, with science being at 7 in the morning, ). May I ask for a restate, that's just a little simpler? I understand most of it...>>Were you/are you a teacher/prof? Or are you just good with chemistry? <<
Generally:I'm glad this is actually a discussion, ("-") not just a ""I wanna ask this." ...Replies:1" kind of thing.
<b>Nothing's perfect... The world's not perfect. But it's there for us, trying the best it can. That's what makes it so damn beautiful.</b> <br /><...