Alchemy is changing one element into another with "chemical" methods.
Changing an element into another by smashing particles into each other at relativistic speeds is physics, not chemistry.
The first one doesn't happen. The second one has been known since before world war II.
I had to reread the rules myself and you are right there is no rule specific about alchemy, I thought there were. For a while it was. But this forum is based in science and not fantasy. So discussions about ormus gold or other modern alchemical ideas is seen as spam, scam or religion and those are forbidden here. Take those discussions somewhere else.
Historical alchemy can be discussed, as the discovery of phosphorus by a guy trying to create gold by boiling urine. But any attempt to imply that alchemy is real will be a reason for banning. I've been given the mission to keep high standards on this forum and that is what I will do.
myfalconry76 said:
There is a real science that deals with changing metal into pm.
Yeah, that's physics.
myfalconry76 said:
However it isn't really cost affective. 400 USD to produce 1/10 a gram of gold from lead mercury or bismuth isn't a very sound investment. This is real science. If one could improve upon technique and find a cheaper more fundamental way of doing it. That would be great. And I understand the whole no alchemy thing and respect that.
What you described isn't alchemy, it's still physics and feel free to talk about it as much as you want. You could probably dig up a few older threads as it's been discussed before.
myfalconry76 said:
But to say its not real science is demeaning to every chemist that ever lived. As it was alchemy that gave birth to modern chemistry and physics. And one of it's main and most well known contributions we all use every time we refine gold. Auqua Regia was first noted by the (alchemist) Psuedo Gerber in the in the 14th century. As far as things that have been proven scientifically void. Yes they have no business here.
Alchemy was the precursor to chemistry before they realized how things were connected. I have great admiration for the earlier alchemists that spend a lot of energy on trying to discover how things worked. But they, just as modern chemists and other scientists, based their work on the knowledge of their predecessors and discarded false knowledge.
Alchemy is what was discarded when modern chemistry appeared and I don't think I will insult any chemists today by saying that alchemy today has nothing to do with science.
To say that what the particle physicists are doing today is alchemy is like telling an astronomer that he is doing astrology.
Göran