Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
all elements everywhere are the same for the most part. there are isotopes of course.
all atoms in the universe with 3 protons in the nucleus are LITHIUM. all atoms in the universe with 26 protons in the nucleus are IRON. There is a reason they are called elements. they are elemental and universal.
Mass spectrometric analysis can tell you the exact composition and the exact ratio of compounds in any object, no matter how far away it is. and I mean EXACT.
all stars fuse hydrogen molecules into helium and then progressively larger elemental atoms, and when they go supernova and explode, the fuse these atoms into iron and all the heavier elements that exist.
someone needs to refresh their astrophysics!
|
Haha, guess I've been schooled!
But what fascinates me most about science is what we don't know opposed to what we do. Science and scientist have a history of exuding pompous, conclusive relevance to their studies and findings with little room for imagination. I appreciate that is how their brains work, but every so many years, we evolve what we know about our environment.
While Mass Spectrometry is just as impressive as it is interesting, I'd dare to say, it's not definitive. I think we are talking about regions of existence that are out of our reach, and again, we can only dissect them based on the molecular structure we've categorized to our small knowledge and existence. And just in general, to "assume" that the molecular structure of the whole universe is detectable by human classification as it relates to our planet, might be a stretch. In my opinion, although we have a molecular structure and breakdown for all existence on our planet, I still feel we know very little about it in the big picture.
There will always be the "I'm gonna tell you what's up because here's what MY research tells you" committee, and then there's the "I want to know more and why" bunch. Those are the ones who pioneer new research. (and, I'm not directing this at you, but the generalization of scientists).
It may be another 100 years, it may be 10,000 years down the line, but if Mass spectrometry has developed so much in about 100 years, what will it evolve to down the line.
I applaud ongoing science, but just to look at history and see the last 1000 years and how much our knowledge has evolved, I'd feel silly to assume that whatever "conclusive" research has to offer at our present time, will only be looked back at as primitive 100 years later in a "world is flat" kinda way. they're be saying.... remember when they were doing 3 dimensional molecular studies (etc.).....