Difference between revisions of "Talk:2214: Chemistry Nobel"
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
''"misconception that the empty space at the top of the periodic table represents undiscovered elements"''... [citation needed]. Is that really a thing? Never heard of it. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ''"misconception that the empty space at the top of the periodic table represents undiscovered elements"''... [citation needed]. Is that really a thing? Never heard of it. [[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
:Somehow I did not think about that the entire time I was editing this thing, because I don’t believe it is. I guess I’ll fix it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.56|172.69.34.56]] 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | :Somehow I did not think about that the entire time I was editing this thing, because I don’t believe it is. I guess I’ll fix it. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.56|172.69.34.56]] 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
| + | Some uninvited pedantry (unlike all my other didactic discourse here, which you guys bring on yourselves): Referenced in the copic is not THE periodic table, just ''a'' periodic table. And it isn't really objectively scientific. It's better to call it the ''most popular'' periodic table. Such tables are a rather ham-handed attempt to explain the patterns of the elements in an "intuitive" (or at least heuristic) way. But the popular one we learn in school is actually far from the best one even in that sense. [[wikipedia:Alternative periodic tables|Check out the alternatives]], many of which are more scientifically sound and logical...but aren't as simplistic for the easy-minded, so they haven't caught on. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:37, 12 October 2019
No Discussion yet? REALLY?!!? 162.158.214.82 15:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This may be a reference to SCP-2046. 162.158.146.34 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Or something else. From the beginning, what are the ten radical isotopes? -- Hkmaly (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't this potentially involve exotic isotopes of hydrogen that behave similarly to elements in the same group? --162.158.214.136 16:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh gods, I needed this laugh. Have my Chemistry exam on Monday, this does put a smile on my face.
"misconception that the empty space at the top of the periodic table represents undiscovered elements"... [citation needed]. Is that really a thing? Never heard of it. Ralfoide (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Somehow I did not think about that the entire time I was editing this thing, because I don’t believe it is. I guess I’ll fix it. 172.69.34.56 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Some uninvited pedantry (unlike all my other didactic discourse here, which you guys bring on yourselves): Referenced in the copic is not THE periodic table, just a periodic table. And it isn't really objectively scientific. It's better to call it the most popular periodic table. Such tables are a rather ham-handed attempt to explain the patterns of the elements in an "intuitive" (or at least heuristic) way. But the popular one we learn in school is actually far from the best one even in that sense. Check out the alternatives, many of which are more scientifically sound and logical...but aren't as simplistic for the easy-minded, so they haven't caught on. —Kazvorpal (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
