How to discuss religion with believers?

[Drich]

OK, but that is only because of our inability to aim correctly. In the reactions that worked, it was one atom of bismuth that gave rise to one atom of gold when hit by a helium nucleus. There were some protons and neutrons left over.

Yes!!!! My point exactly. There are protons and neutrons left over meaning even in a one atom of bismuth to 1 atom of gold it is still not a one to one transfer, it is the knocked off bits of the bismuth atom AND the helium bullet. My whole point to the OP was his inflexibility to count the 'unknown cost.' to which he insists on the theoritical fission of air to gold @ a 1:1 ratio.

You can't have a 1:1 ratio when there is a remainder and a third unaccounted for element.

This equation would look more like 1:.00035:.00065:1 IF like you said we could aim correctly. Not to mention this does not account for the bits knocked off of bismuth does not combine with helium and make a 4 element or variable.

The grander point to the OP being, If the equation God uses is more like the one above, (where god decompiles all subatomic particles and builds/ adds mass by taking 30 air atoms break them down to their sub atomic parts and re assemble them to one gold atom) and the OP is demanding God us his 1:1 fission method would the feat be any less miraculous? Or would the OP judge what was done a trick or lie because God did not work in the little box the Op demands because his faith in science demands air be made into gold this way and no other way despite not being able to do it the scientific way ourselves?

It seems the OP can and only will understand the process he by faith deems the only way this process to work, despite what we/man has been able to do since 1980 by "wrecking" or disassembling atoms

OK, so let's make this easy. Air is made from a mixture of primarily molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. Both molecules have two atoms of the respective type: a molecule of nitrogen as two atoms of nitrogen and a molecule of oxygen has two atoms of oxygen. Air also has molecules of carbon dioxide (two atoms of oxygen and one of carbon) and water (two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen), but these are in much smaller amounts.

actuall by defination "air" contains 3 primary componets nitrogen oxygen and argon.
The addition of moisture (over .05%) would be added to the air as in moisture or humidity in the air. up to 2% at which point would cause the moisture to condens depending on pressure and temp. 2% @ sea level. Carbon added to air in above .0039% is considered high carbon or carbon rich air.

The point "AIR" refers to the purest form of this planet's atmosphere. the addition of other elements natural or notis not being discussed. meaning humid air or high carbon saturated air is not being discussed.

An atom of nitrogen has 7 protons, 7 neutrons, and 7 electrons. An atom of oxygen has 8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons. So, an atom of nitrogen has an atomic mass of 14 amu and an atom of oxygen has an atomic mass of 16 amu (the mass of the electrons is very small)--the protons and neutrons each have a mass of about 1 amu).

which is why I rounded up to 30 u considering that argon only repersented less than 1% of air.

This means that a molecule of nitrogen has a total of 14 protons, 14 neutrons, and 14 electrons with a total mass of 28 amu. Notice that the mass and the total number of protons and neutrons is the same. Similarly, an oxygen molecule has 16 protons, 16 neutrons, and 16 electrons with a combined mass of 32 amu. because of the relative amounts of nitrogen and oxygen in the air, the average mass of a molecule in the air is 29 amu, which corresponds to an average of 29 protons or neutrons per molecule.

A standard atom of gold (there are several different isotopes) has 79 protons and 118 neutrons, for a combined atomic mass of 197.

I've said all of this like literally 4 different times? are you cutting and pasting my work to explain it to me or to your peers?

No, now, how would you make an atom of gold? Well, the first thing to notice is that protons and neutrons convert between themselves fairly easily in nuclear reactions and the electrons are mostly irrelevant.


So, we have to put 197 nucleons (protons or neutrons) together where each molecule of air supplies 29 nucleons. That means that we need about 197/29=6.8 molecules of air for each atom of gold.

not according to the op. according to the op there is a 1:1 ratio via some sort of fussion science has yet to identify and produce gold with.

But, and this is crucial, those 6.8 molecules of air have the same mass as that one molecule of gold. So, while the 6.8 molecules of air form one atom of gold (a 6.8:1 ratio), the *masses* are the same. It takes the same mass of air molecules to make a certain mass of gold molecules.

So, to make 1 ton of gold would require 1 ton of air. The masses will be the same.

here is where you fail mr. math.
where is your bullet? where is your catalytic where is the energy/fuel expenditure needed for this process to take place? Remember in my SCIENTIFIC example we used a atom of helium as a bullet to knock a few bits off the bismuth atom..

What are we using to facilitate this conversion? meaning if air does not currently spontaneously condense and rain gold nuggets from time to time there must be an expenditure of some sort of energy. for the OP this is that magical bit o fusion he has been on about for a week and 1/2 now.

I personally don't have the answer either but let's say it takes a minimum of 1 ton of gold to make one ton of air like you said as the mass is the same, but how much more air is needed to facilitate this 'fusion?' Even the fusion in the stars run off of something let's say God can create fusion from the air molecules that would bring fourth gold bars as the OP directed. Let's say you are correct and the OP is correct. in that there is a need of one ton of air to one ton of gold and let's says fusion in also needed. So then how much air is consumed in creating this atom changing fusion? 3 tons? 30? tons 90 tons of air to one tone of Gold? what if the OP is wrong and it is not fusion it is some other process that demanded a 2000:1 ratio, would then the op demand his gold for the sake of changing the planet? what if every douche bag like the op demanded this, what would the rest of us breath?

Again and AGAIN my point from the very beginning of all of this (before you took my work and repasted it) is we do not understand the cost of something like turning air into gold. So then how G*D DAMN Stupid is it to ask God to do something like this as proof of anything? because again I can make a gold or silver coin appear from thin air.. So then how would you know the difference between magic and slight of hand? Then the OP went atomic, to which I said even then you can not count the cost as we do not know the exchange rate, meaning we do not know how much air is needed to produce 1 ton of gold. what if it took a planets worth of air to produce that one ton of gold? to which you two assumed I was the idiot...

But, air and gold have different densities, which means that a ton of air will have a much larger volume than a ton of gold, even though the masses are the same. For gold, that ton would have a volume of about 50 liters. For air, that same ton would have a volume of about 770,000 liters.

Again, the masses are the same, mainly because they have the same number of nucleons. But the volumes are very different because the density of air is much smaller than that of gold.

again I get it sport, while this is true in elemental items it is not true in (defending a point I think I said to you which may have spawn this whole mass discussion) refrigerant because today's refrigerants are azeotropic blends meaning several different refrigerants of different molecular mass are blended together to make a stable compound while encaptured and under pressure in liquid form. let's say 3 refrigerants are used because of their refrigeration properties and one lighter gas is used like a propellent (like in an aerosol can) while condensed in liquid form 1 lb of liquid refrigerant has a volume of 1/3 with a mass of 2x of pound of the same refrigerant in gas form in the same can. which is why we are never to use a bottle that may still have a pound or two in the bottle but no liquid.

2 pounds of gas refrigerant is garbage while 1 pound of liquid refrigerant can go for as much as 400 dollars a pound.

Because liquid ensure properly blended refrigerant while gas can be lacking the 3 heavy refrigeration components and still retain 1 pound of propellent.

This was a good post on your part, I think if you take the time to actually read what I wrote I think you will get what I have been saying even if the op wants to keep chasing his tail... then maybe you can help him get it too!