How to discuss religion with believers?

[Drich]

TL;DR you are wrong. More specifically, your understanding of mass, density and mole are wrong. To me it's perfectly clear what you didn't understand and so we can correct this. But let's go with order

Look and again I am not disputing I have little knowledge of terminology. this should accurately demonstrate the 4th grade education I was speaking of. Again this shows off my personal limitations. I can't label your integers to create an equation you would recognise.

Where the F is my gold? That's for me to ask, as I was the first to ask your god to spawn gold. 

But again that's the thing is it not? If your understand of this process was complete you could at least point to air being converted at your perscribed ratios to gold, but you can not even do that. So to me everything you say on thei subject is the way you think it should go.. how things should work, how matter is displaced and converted.. but again if this where not a demonstration of pure faith on your part you could show me where gold has been created even on a atomic level.

Did you already forget from where all  this discussion originated?

did you? because I asked you if God were to do this before your very eyes could you even tell the difference between the actual manufacturing of gold and slight of hand? would you be able to account for all the unknowns/unknowables currently keeping us from turning air into gold... meaning if all you know of this process has not created one atom of Gold then how would you know God or anyone was actually doing it? Again I'm asking you to account for the current unknowns not the BS you keep trying to sell. Because you can Not point to one example of air being turned into Gold everything you believe about the process yes meaning all the bull shite you were trying to use to shame me into silence is just you flexing your faith in what you think let me repeat that.. WHAT YOU THINK Would go down when Air turned into Gold. No Gold, no position or authority on telling me shite about your faith in how other things works proven or not in science. You sir are well out of your depth here and are speaking on faith, which I have no problem with, but you should be approaching me with faith and evidence not some puffed up sense of superiority on a speculative endeavor that has never been done! More people have stood before Jesus/God then have seen man make gold in any form or anything other than gold! and it is with that 'proof/blind faith' you try and obliterate me? bruh, please.

The act of turning air into gold would indeed be a majestic feat worthy of a being called god because you would need to manually, surgically, rearrange electrons, protons and neutrons and absorb or redirect any energy deriving from this rearrangement. Basically you’d need something like subatomic tweezers, perfect control and eyes with resolutions of an electron coupled with an operational speed equating the speed of light OR some particularly tailored electromagnetic waves able to induce such changes OR magic powers that transcend this physical reality. No one can perform this feat right now, but we have enough technology to ascertain it happening. This is WHY I asked to be shown this specific feat.

but again what prevents you for falling for slight of hand, as I can currently produce gold in the form of a coin out of thin air myself. or were you so busy trying to blow me up that you forgot this was the whole basis of my rebuttal?

When you say “Ah, that’s right, you can’t” or “if you knew how this all worked you would have done it” it’s like you were trying to prove that I am not god. The thing is, I never claimed to be god. That was what I wanted out of God. You are asking out of me the same evidence that I’m asking out of god. Do you hold me in this high regard?

what I am prooving is if you do not know the process or the exchange rates you are not in an authoritiv position to correct me or anyone else who speculates on how it is done. that you look as much as a fool correcting me on how to pick up thor's hammer as me telling you how I would do it. Can you get you head around my objection yet? or are you going to break out a few more foolish formulas?
 

And again, bad science. When you say the ratio is not 1:1 you are saying NOTHING, because you are not stating in regards to WHAT. Is that a volume ratio? A mass ratio? A molar ratio? Do you realize that these 3 things are different?

straw man arguement. I gave the exchange rate as being atmic particles. Again the arguement was to witness an actual atomic change.. There fore the rate of conversion is greater than one part/molcule of air to one atom of gold

If I have 1 m3 of lead and 1 m3 of aluminium then:
1 m3 of lead has the same volume of 1 m3 of aluminium, so their volume ratio is 1:1
1 m3 of lead has a mass which is 4.2 times that of 1 m3 of aluminium, so their mass ratio is 4.2:1
1 m3 of lead contains 54.78 mols, 1 m3 of aluminium contains 207.7 mols, so their molar ratio is 1:3.8

If you don’t say in regards to WHAT, then your “ratio” holds no meaning.

Also, 1 pound of your gaseous refrigerant is equal to 1 pound of your liquid refrigerant. Here you are just confusing mass, volume, density and mole.

why are we speaking of anthing larger than an atom? are you unfamilair with atomic weight? are you unfamilair of how elements change? are you unfamilir with how all elements are made up of the singilar material but in different densities?

Then why do you keep on trying to over complicate the discussion with cross conversions? are you trying to put this subject on the top shelf so I can't reach it? if no understand I get atoms well enough to have an elementary discussion, and if with all of your different cross conversions can't have an elementary discussion... well It means you are not what/who you think you are. Didn't einstein himself say: " be as simple as possible where ever you can?" What is more simple than a straight one to one/no conversion needed single atomic discussion concerning 1 atom instead 26 to the 35power atoms?

Your argument is wrong because your idea of mass or “quantity” in general is wrong. In a closed system, mass is constant and unchanging. If you have a box with 10 balls that weigh 1 Kg each, glued together to form one big agglomerate of balls weighing 10 Kg, and you rearrange them by making 5 sets of 2 balls each, or 10 sets of 1 ball each, the final mass will always be the same. You are just rearranging them.

here's the thing dumbass.. We/Man have been able to turn one element into Gold in a closed system/helium collider since 1980. and there is not a 1:1 exchange ration.

This is the concept that is eluding you. When I ask god to transmute air to gold, I am asking him to rearrange balls at a subatomic level. Instead of one set of 10 balls, I want 10 sets of 1 ball. The mass is always the same. What confuses you are the concepts of density and mole.

but again if you had a idk a real life example LIKE I F_ING DO you would know better. but again we are stuck in your little mind on how things should work in a perfect version of your cosmos, which seems to be shadow box built on this cosmos. but with stern absolutus only you are privy to.

Also, why do you keep warning and insisting on the “trade off”? Are you trying to attach some kind of morale to it like “you have to give up a large volume of air to get a small volume of gold”? Because if that’s the case, I personally don’t care. This is a demonstration. I’m not asking him to convert all air to gold, I want him to convert a finite volume of air, and 24.4 L (1 mol) for me is enough.

This was the god thing telling me there is never a 1:1 trade. everything has a cost when going from this to that. atoms or in this case subatomic particals must be moved at the expense of ???? If we knew the ???? this would not be a mirical.

What you are doing here is just deflecting. You already said before that this is my version of god that doesn't exist, but you decided to arrogantly entangle yourself anyways in this hypothetic scenario where god is like that, by over-complicating a simple example I had made out of the tip of my brain and turning it into a tragedy. A tragedy where math and physics got murdered several times.

I have no idea what your on about here. all I've done is demonstrate my personal liitations in the educaction/science side of things, and when you come around you will also see I am right about the trade off as well. You'll see shortly..

But you know, I get paid to simplify unnecessarily complicated things, it is part of my job and so I'm used to it. You really want to cling to such insignificant details? Fine, then I’ll redesign the experiment just for you: 
I want your god to convert 22.56 g of iridium (= 1 cm3 = 0.1174 moles) to 22.56 g of gold (= 1.99 cm3 = 0.1145 moles). 

but again why put god in such a little box? what if the atomic yield of iridium was such that it would allow 22.56 grams of the base element to be converted to 50 grams of gold?

This way I am not depriving you of any precious air and you can keep breathing normally. Moreover the change in volume is insignificant, so you are not creating any dangerous vacuum or an explosion, while the disappearance of this small shitlet of iridium won’t change your life. 

it was neve about the air sport it was always about you not accounting for the unknowns when asking god for something. Again in this situation how or what measures do you have in place to ensure you not being deceived by slight of hand? I could in fact take a small sphere or cube or even coin size disc and produce an equal size or portion of gold. by simple slight of hand. So then If i do this for you would you worship me as God?

Again like with the air if you do not know the trade if you do not know the cost of what you ask for then how will you know what you have is that which you asked?

Are you happy with this setup? Are you satisfied now that the transmutation is moral and safe? No, you aren't, because your next response will be "Ah, but this is your version of God which doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter anyways". I saw it coming from a mile, but your arrogance coupled with your bad math and attempt to lecture me triggered me.

Again no idea what you are on about. I think you like so many others confuse the God of the bible with the god of morality... God via Christ is not concerned with your morality.

The mass of a single unit of a substance is the sum of its protons, neutrons and electrons (so its atomic weight).

But it's difficult to discuss the properties of a single atom, we can't really handle a single atom.

At best we can handle a bunch of atoms. Cool, then let's decide a standard to discuss this bunch of atoms. Let's call it mole and let's state that a mole of a substance is equal to 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 units of that substance. But saying that a mole is equal to 602 thousands of billions of billions of units is unpractical, so let's shorten it to 6.023*10^23. But even this number is a hassle to drag around, let's just call it NA (Avogadro's number).

Now, this bunch of atoms has a mass and depending on the element, the protons, neutrons and electrons are arranged differently from atom to atom. Some have more of these particles and so they weigh more, some have less and so they weigh less... but some have almost identical mass! Whatever, they'll weigh similarly.

Up to this point, I assume it's all clear. Now we get at the nasty part: how much volume do these single units occupy? The answer is: it depends how they are arranged. That's right. You would be inclined to think that an element with more protons/neutrons/electrons has a higher density, right? That's the intuitive answer. The problem is, it doesn't work like that. This is the trend of density with the atomic weight:
https://www.ptable.com/#Property/Density/STP
Can you see how "weird" the trend is? For example, an atom of iridium has less protons/neutrons/electrons than 1 atom of gold, yet it is more dense. Why? The reason behind this is electro-magnetic in nature. Having more particles doesn't always equate to having higher density, because some particles, despite being less in number, may actually be held tightly closer because of how they are arranged. Can you see the recurring theme here? Arrangement, arranged?


Please, do ask questions if this isn't clear. I want to make sure you understand this part. You aren't stupid or limited, you just learnt something wrong. If you assimilate this, everything else will suddenly come flowing through you. You know, the first version of the post I had written was much harsher and caustic because you had pissed me off, but now that I have identified where the misunderstanding was, I kind of understood what misled you all this time.

PS: I may reply tomorrow to other queries. Till then, go ahead

again the reason we are discussing individual atoms is because it is on the atomic level that we/man have produced gold, not in grams or mols or anything else you have tried to use in your theoretical conversion they had to count atoms.. not only that they had to extend their definition of gold to include anything with a atomic weight of 190 to 200 which again the gold standard being 196. The way they did this was the took a far more dense material in a much larger quantity (several grams) and bombarded it with helium atoms in a closed circuit super collider.. when the helium smashed into the bismuth it was obliterated. other times when the atomswhere slightly off center the bismuth was cut in to 1/3s or lost 1/2 of it mass and made something else. but when the helium just winged the bismuth and only remove 4 to 6 neutrons guess what. there was gold made, but it was not the 1:1 ratio your predictions made. it was not even a 1:90, out of several grams.. The gold that was made was in the 10's not 10's of thousands, but like 20 or 30 individual atoms of gold were made if again you count the atomic weight of anything with the atomic weight of 190 to 200 gold. which is a crazy exchange rate.

Again what I shown here is my personal intelectual limitations. I don't know your rule I don't know your terminology, but before I looked up anything I was shown inorder for gold to be made atoms had to be bulked up and shaved down, and I knew both processes would be very very messy and a had to happen in a very unique way otherwise gold would be common as dirt.

So after you second "you don't know what you are talking about" I looked up lead into gold, and up poped this one time in 1980 where gold was made. I cross referenced this and it is a legit story. so like big fish I let you spool out as much 'line' as you needed to hang yourself. let you go on and on flurishing how smart you think you are. explaining to all of us that proper understanding of the names of thing you were using is what one needs to be smart. then once I knew the hook was deep, deep in that proud belly i set the hook.

You wanted to talk theory and how things would work in your closed loop world.

I simply stuck to my guns and explained how this would not be the 1:1 gold gathering event you thought it to be. You tried to red herring this whole thing and top shelf the conversation by using all manner of things you knew a 4th grade educated man could just know nothing about. Then I started reeling you in sprinkling in some real world apps, then you countered with oh, well you are using the wrong standard to measure out base material to gold and went on and on like a good teacher instructing his new project to the dark side of alchemy (joke douche I know it is not alchemy), then I got you up to the boat and smash! there go those brains all over my big ass boat and here comes the gaff and in you go to the cooler! when i show all your speculation was indeed faith based nonsense your tutelage in showing me atomic change was far too small of a measure to observe your process. I did this by referring back to the second day's research that showed all your huff and puff was pomp and fluff. because we have done what you are suggesting only God can do. and what's yet? it is a train wreck. meaning out of grams of the base material atoms of gold were made.

Meaning everything you said and told me to do how to think your observations your conclusions based in your faith in your knowledge of science and how all of this chemistry would work... was wrong. all of it. miss placed faith. I would say a mustard seed is about the size of a period. look at all you have written based on what you thought you knew... much larger than a mustard seed huh? All that belief and faith in your understanding of science.. Much like your version of God you put 100% faith in that and oh how ironically real science represented by a man of faith/belief showed you to be beyond wrong in everything you said in the last 3 days.

You called out in your faith and got an answer and with al vim and vigor defended it as if it were truth. (I even hinted at this direction I was going)
And
I call out on My faith and my God to give me direction, and like wise was given and answer, but the difference between you and me, much like with our dealings with God... I checked for proof where I could, and like with God found it, turns out my call on god for direction was 100% right and I proved it via the simple google search you poo pooed on.


All of that aside do you see now where my abilities end where my knowledge and education stops and where God himself pics me up and carries me over the finish line?

The same thing in business. I have two international publicly traded companies competing with me in this area, 3 years ago they dropped out of the market I specifically am in and simply refer any of my type of work directly to me, because the lord had me dominate the sub market I'm in it was too costly for the international companies to keep train and find the speciality work I and my people do.