AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Plasma wrote:See, the first time you did that, it was funny. When you do it again straight after, in a more serious thread, it makes you look like a conspiracy nut. And also racist.

Fail.

Karilyn wrote:Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:07 am Post subject:
Or if you are disguised as a white woman like Micheal Jackson.

Karilyn wrote:Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:08 am Post subject:
[img]http://www.bushiq.com/wp-content/upload ... an.jpg[img]

I think the major fail here is that you seemed so concerned about it.

I think the real major fail here is that you're all going off topic and making these discussions too personal.

Bacon wrote:...Chocolate is not made with alchemy.

http://www.chocolatealchemy.com/

Shut up. It can be made. It's not like the factory made stuff. It's natural. I've met the guy, I know how he does it, and it's possible. It's like brewing your own beer. People said it was impossible, so protesters started doing it, and it tasted great to them. There are only certain things in this world that are impossible, and making chocolate with alchemy is not one of them. Alchemy involves processes, which take time. It bodaciously is cooking, but it involves longer periods of waiting. It's not like I'm saying one can clap their hands, apply them to the raw materials, and BAM you have chocolate. Real alchemy takes a while, and a great deal of patience.

I don't know if food chemistry is really alchemy, isn't it just chemistry?

I do know a lot of things labelled as chocolate aren't really chocolate at all.


Next time you eat something labelled as 'chocolate flavoured' you should know you're probably eating some synthetic compound that's been cooked up in a laboratory to provide confectionery manufacturers with a cheaper alternative to real cocoa-bean derived chocolate.

Feyrhagan wrote:chemistry

Fixed that for you.

Essentially... Historically, alchemy was the predecessor to chemistry. People were screwing around, combining metals together at random in hopes of making gold, silver, the elixir of life (a potion which would grant immortality), and/or a substance which would dissolve any other substance.

People had known for a while that you could combine two substances, and get something else. For example, you can make Bronze by mixing together Tin and Copper. And you can make Tin and Copper by melting and separating Bronze.

It was through people screwing around, that they started realizing that there was patterns and rules that governed how substances interacted with each other. People started recording these, and thus Chemistry was born.

...

TL;DR: Alchemists didn't succeed in much. They were failed counterfeiters. They accidently succeeded in learning how different mixtures separate, which went on to be used as a basis of Chemistry.

Ahahaha.

Hive mind.

Of course you can make your own chocolate or your own beer. Both have been around for centuries, long before modern factories.
Now if I would call that alchemy, I don't know.

Alchemy, in its basic sense, it changing one thing to another with chemicals and science. It actually is possible, with moving protons around, to change one element into another. With food the closest thing I know there is to that is splicing the genes of vegetables and fruits to make combinations like snapples.

Fauche wrote:I think the real major fail here is that you're all going off topic and making these discussions too personal.

Feyrhagan wrote:Shut up. Now I will post a long booty rant that just makes me sound like I'm throwing a fissy hit that no one believed me instead of just informing people of the truth of the matter.

Today is a disappointing day.

Karilyn wrote:People had known for a while that you could combine two substances, and get something else. For example, you can make Bronze by mixing together Tin and Copper. And you can make Tin and Copper by melting and separating Bronze.

Yeah, but bronze is an alloy.

Tin and copper are elements.


I thought true alchemy was trying to make one element transform into another element... like lead into gold.

The Big Cheese wrote:snapples

Sorry, but what's that? The only thing called snapple I found on Wikipedia was some sort of drink.

Mond wrote:

The Big Cheese wrote:snapples

Sorry, but what's that? The only thing called snapple I found on Wikipedia was some sort of drink.

He was talking about some form of retarded gene splicing rather than alchemy in that post anyway.

DoNotDelete wrote:I thought true alchemy was trying to make one element transform into another element... like lead into gold.

That's what I thought too, but the chocolate alchemy site begs to differ, unless of course the alchemy part of it is just a name and doesn't have anything to do with actual alchemy... I just know the most depth they went into on alchemy in all the science classes I've ever taken was the original belief that there was only the "basic elements" earth, air, fire, and water, and then the belief you could turn lead into gold. But it was so long ago, I don't remember how they believed they could do it.

DoNotDelete wrote:

Karilyn wrote:People had known for a while that you could combine two substances, and get something else. For example, you can make Bronze by mixing together Tin and Copper. And you can make Tin and Copper by melting and separating Bronze.

Yeah, but bronze is an alloy. Tin and copper are elements.

I thought true alchemy was trying to make one element transform into another element... like lead into gold.

Sorta. We know that gold is an element. Alchemists did not.

Alchemy became Chemistry around the point when people started understanding that gold was not an alloy, that gold was made up of something which could not be split into smaller parts. AKA, "Gold" was the first substance to be recognized correctly as a modern "Element."

In other words, the recognition that the most basic building blocks were not Fire, Water, Air, Earth, and Ether (and Sulphur, Mercury, Salt... so fuck it, gold was the "4th" element). But something else, and gold was one of them.