2

I just read about Alchemy. And it seems to me that many of their principles are closely related to chemistry.

So, here is my doubt - Why is not possible to make that alchemist stone called Philosopher's Stone? What was the misconception about the research of Philosopher's Stone and how does modern chemistry can prove, or at least consider, that actually it is a Dead-end research?

Has any modern chemist ever tried to reopen the research on this topic?

jonsca
  • 2,967
  • 7
  • 33
  • 56
user3459110
  • 842
  • 1
  • 11
  • 27
  • 3
    I don't think this is a serious question. There are countless refutations of this on the net. Turns out you can do it with a particle accelerator, but that's cheating. If you can ask a constructive question about that in particular, I'll reopen. – jonsca Apr 12 '14 at 08:38
  • This question appears to be off-topic because it is about pseudoscience. – jonsca Apr 12 '14 at 08:39
  • @GM I completely agree with you. This was what I had thought many a times before asking the question. I hadn't expected this would be put on hold. Anyways, I would leave it to the community. – user3459110 Apr 12 '14 at 13:52
  • 2
    If empirical reality can be falsified by wishes, then the burden is upon the wisher to reduce to practice upon demand. The OP is ordered to explicitly state an experiment. – Uncle Al Apr 12 '14 at 14:16
  • @UncleAl ROFLing at ordered to explicitly state an experiment. I have no intentions of turning copper in gold man... – user3459110 Apr 12 '14 at 14:19
  • 2
    @AwalGarg however I think your title cold be better (it seems that Philosopher stone is supported by chemistry...) jonsca simply put it on hold to force you to improve your question, in my opinion try to accomplish this task! :-) P.S. see this related question http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/8455/can-we-goldify-metals/8478#8478 – G M Apr 12 '14 at 14:32
  • @GM,jonsca Edited. Better? – user3459110 Apr 13 '14 at 06:29
  • @AwalGarg I know what you mean, I voted to reopen your question, the problem is that there is no "principle" behind Philosopher's Stone and chemistry in fact "does't not support it", so your assumption are wrong, maybe for this reason jonsca close it, I think you could try something like this (check my english): What was the misconception behind the Philosopher's Stone and how does modern chemistry deals with this topic?and rearrange your question in this way, because actually it seems that you believe the philosoper's stone really existed. – G M Apr 13 '14 at 10:51
  • @GM I am pleased to know you understand what I mean. Thank you for your vote. Umm, would you mind editing the question accordingly. I do not have much experience at Chemistry.SE and thus, I think you can better convey the means... – user3459110 Apr 14 '14 at 07:25
  • @GM Thanks for the edit. I myself now feel more comfortable with it... – user3459110 Apr 15 '14 at 08:03
  • 1
    @AwalGarg you're welcome, thanks for the patience I hope you understand jonsca simply try to allow you to pose the question in the best way, you know I really like the question from the beginning, now it sounds more serious. I will try to contact jonsca. – G M Apr 15 '14 at 08:14
  • 1
    @GM Yes, I understand jonsca. I respect each and every community member, no matter what there actions be on anyone's posts... We are all here to help flourish this site. – user3459110 Apr 15 '14 at 08:22
  • I had almost forgot about this question. I wonder why is it not yet reopened. It seems completely perfect now... – user3459110 May 03 '14 at 15:35
  • 1
    I think the alchemy tag is inappropriate for this site and that is why I removed it from the question. Alchemy is a part of the [tag:history-of-chemistry] and therefore this tag is more than appropriate. Also this is the only question with this tag and it is also flagged as off-topic. – Martin - マーチン May 09 '14 at 06:29
  • @AwalGarg I agree with Martin, I don't think that tag is appropriate. Please don't edit it back in again or I will have to lock the post. – jonsca May 09 '14 at 06:33
  • @jonsca Ok... Sorry, Martin I didn't know about that. – user3459110 May 09 '14 at 10:05

0 Answers0