Re: Alchemy
From: jacques jedwab (jjedwab_at_ulb.ac.be)
Date: 11/18/04
- Next message: David Evens: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Gremlin: "Alchemy"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: Alchemy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Nov 2004 08:55:03 GMT
Go to www.alchemywebsite.com and be damned (sure, you will!).
J.J.
In article <Xns95A4E263F3664Test@216.168.3.44>, Gremlin
<virtualadepts.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a quick question that isn't technical in nature.
>
> In alchemy all things are thought to be composed of either Fire, Water,
> Earth, or Air... It seems whenever I am around introductory material on
> physics or chemistry they bad mouth these old concepts.. "Ooh no," they
> say, "Everything is made out of chemicals, not these four elements".
>
> Well isn't it true that today we still think of 4 basic phases of matter?
> Solids, Liquids, Gasses, and Plasmas? Can't physicists and chemistry
> authors see how these phases directly relate to the four elements? Solids
> are obvious earth. Liquids are obviously water. Gasses are obviously air.
> And fire with a little thought is obviously Plasma.. Lightning is made of
> plasma, so are candle flames.
>
> So much of modern science has been based in old philisophical ideas like
> these ones above, and so often other cultures have arived at the same
> conclusions are scientists have. Why don't these alternative views get the
> credit they deserve!?
>
> From your Pal,
> Gremlin
- Next message: David Evens: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Previous message: Alex Terrell: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- In reply to: Gremlin: "Alchemy"
- Next in thread: Eric Gisse: "Re: Alchemy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
