How to discuss religion with believers?

[Scientia]

I don't know if I should even bother to answer, since what you said is based on your wrong understanding of matter.

I got what you are saying.. completely.

Now, what I am saying is... in the actual model of turning one element into gold, it was done on the atomic level. which if we are going to have a intellegent conversation on the matter it must follow the formula that has been scientifically proven and vetted. 

Do you agree? Can you see that every other perscrition into turning substance "A" into gold is pure speculation compared to what has been verified and done.

Now you believe through a process of fussion (adding energy) moocules can be turned into gold.  To which I simply ask where is your gold. you have none hence your whole spiel is little more than a thought experiment/the way we think the way 'science' thinks things should work.

Now IF YOU took the time to read the article I posted you would note that is not how we were able to turn one element into gold.

Do you know what a particle accelerater is? I'm gonna piss you off and tell you any way. In cern where the biggest accelerator is located it is a huge hoop made up of many segments and each segment contains an electromagnetic 'booster' not imagine a 1000 segments each able to boost anything in the segment a little faster than the boost before and so on and so one in a closed loop circuit. 

So what do they boost? the boost helium and generally they turn it up to nearly the speed of light. meaning the helium atoms  are soring through this huge cose loop zipping about at or near the speed of light then normally the introduce other atoms to split the bonds between electrons netrons and positrons. 

So this is how they made gold from bismuth a lead like substance. They took grams of bismuth and bombarded it with trillions upon trillions of helium atoms going near the speed of light. The fission you say has to happen was not the goal here. They used the helium atoms like a bullets. they shot the static bismuth but not ever atom of helium that hit an atom of bismuth was turned to gold. some who hit head on obliterated the bismuth and it was turned into atom of far less mass, >100u  while others were just winged which left they with an atomic weight of 200+ u some where hit off center and made 175u.. The only thing counted as gold was any atoms that where between 190u and 200u with the gold atomic standard being 196u.

Do you understand my side of the arguement? can you explain it back to me and I will do the same so at least we know each other knows what the other is saying.

Do you understand? yes energy was applied and atomic changes where made but not to a 1:1 ratio. again grams were used to creat just atoms with lots and lots of by product that was far lighter than gold or far heavier. 

Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but the ratio is indeed 1:1 in mass because you have gold + leftover neutrons. I don't know why you keep ignoring the latter. The fact that we don't use the leftover neutrons and they just get scattered or inplanted in some neutron absorbers doesn't mean they don't have mass or that they stopped existing.

Do you even understand what that number, 196, refers to? It's the number of protons + neutrons, which have a mass of circa 1.67*10-27 Kg each. If you expel 1 helium nucleus, you just parted ways with 4*1.67*10-27 Kg of your mass. Did this mass stop existing? No, it just wanders and hits some target. 

If I burn 100 g of wood and I'm left with, say, 10 g of ash, is the mass ratio of this transformation 1:1? Yes it is, because you have to consider all the constituents, such as Oxygen in the reactant sides, and CO2 and other volatile oxides on the Products side. Even though you don't bother to capture the volatile oxides that just go away, doesn't mean you suddenly destroyed matter. You just transformed it, but its constituents still retain their mass.

This is the concept that eludes you, and as long as it doesn't get in your head, all that you are saying is just a murder of the first principle of chemistry.

Also, I had already noticed that you kept nitpicking at my thought experiment of air to gold and you started pulling out all sort of reasons and just overcomplicated something conceptually simple, and so I revised my experiment for you: iridum to gold. If my thought experiment still bothers you, then we can ask your god to trigger any random nuclear reaction that we know of. Since you've already read on that topic, then I ask your god to turn bismuth to gold + particles, without our assistance. We give him a nuclear reactor turned off, and we ask him to trigger the reaction. Is that ok for you?

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

The "cost" you talk about is only a "cost" in your eyes. Why do you think it's a cost? You just displaced that nuclei that went somewhere else, so what? The fact that you can't reuse that "escaped" helium nucleus is your problem and I really can't care less, but don't act as if that piece of matter suddenly disappeared from this plane of existence. 


You talk as if any emitted particles is a "cost", some unforgivable sin. 

Also, it's you who wanted to deeply delve in science. I asked God to turn air to gold, he can do it however he wants. Then you asked "how, do you even know how to measure it or something?" and so I proposed a mechanism which is the one we use and we know and tried to explain it to you in all ways. You did your side of research of topic while still neglecting the very first law of chemistry, and then as a final resort you pointed back at me, saying I'm putting him into a box. YOU forced him inside this box.

If I asked you "by tomorrow prepare me 1 cargo of refrigerant bottles and ship them to Canada. I don't give a shit how you do it, just make it happen", then you'll use your own methods and resources and carry out the deed. It's not something impossible. Perhaps difficult, but still reasonably in your human power. 

What I'm asking god is to perform some action that no human could reasonably do in this short time and with these little resources. He created the world in 7 days? Then he should know how to carry out my request. Do you get it now? I'm asking for something that could be possible given the time and resources, in a very short time and with all the restrictions. If he needs the same time and resources as we do to perform this feat, then he's not superior to man, he's just a man.

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.

This is just your way to derail and deflect the discussion. We have sorted out in the beginning that we are approximating air composition to 80% N2 and 20% O2 to make you understand the calculations behind it more easily. You didn't even understand it the simple way and you want to overcomplicate it with more data? 


Do you think I can't see through this? From my request to god to "turn air to gold", it went to "air is not perfectly 1/4 O2/N2". Do you think I can't see all of this?

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

Bad math.

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?

You said it wrong 4 times and we corrected you 5 times.

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.

And again, there is a 1:1 mass ratio. The neutrons and protons you scatter around have their mass, you aren't erasing them from reality.

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...  

As above

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!

Your math is off.


You have a mixture of your 3 refrigerants, A + B + C and the propellent D. We'll call it (A+B+C+D). After this you make two statements, one of which is "dangerous":
1) 1 lb of liquid (A+B+C+D) has 1/3 of the volume of gaseous (A+B+C+D)
2) 1 lb of liquid (A+B+C+D) has twice the mass of gaseous (A+B+C+D)
The first statement is reasonable. In standard conditions (T = 25°C, P = 1 bar), 1 pound of liquid water (ca 0.45 L) can be transformed into ca 615 L of gaseous water, which is 1367 times its starting volume. If you increase the pressure of the system, then you can constrain that pound of gaseous water in a smaller volume but there is a limit to how much you can push, which is dictated by water's phase diagram. 

The second statement is physically impossible. In the event that you managed to create 1 pound of matter from nowhere, please present your research for the Noble prize, as this is indeed a feat befitting of a god

In your case you are most likely talking about the volume inside the pressurized can and the transformation from liquid to gas occurs either because:
1) The blend is bad and it separates overtime
2) You got a leak
3) When you use/spray some of the product the pressure inside the can decreases because you are removing a portion (mass) of its constituents. The decrease of pressure, coupled with a change of the mass, will be accompanied by an increase of the vapour pressure of your product (reads more of your liquid product turns to gas inside the can). After you have used a good portion of your product, it's likely that the leftover has gone almost completely to its gaseous form.

In any of the 3 cases presented above, you aren't erasing any mass of your product from this plane of existence. You are just displacing it.