How to discuss religion with believers?

[polymath257]

Do you know how you can pass from Helium to deuterium? By giving it energy. Do you know how you can fuse two nuclei of helium to form 1 nucleus of Berillium (that, for the record, has twice the number of protons/neutrons of helium)? By giving it energy. You kept repeating that I didn't know the process, well here you are, this is how it works. You give things energy, and they change. This is how nuclear fission and fusion work.

Just a quibble: there is no stable isotope Be-8. So fusing two helium nuclei together won't give a stable nucleus. This is a well-known issue in nucleosynthesis. You need to get Be-9. On the other hand, fusing *three* He-4 nuclei together will give you a carbon nucleus: C-12. And this is even what happens inside of stars moving from the hydrogen cycle of fusion into the carbon cycle.

[Scientia]

Edit: I broke something again with the quote function T_T

Triple-alpha process, yep.

[Drich]

@Drich 
I will try one last time, but I get the feeling that you are straight out ignoring me. You aren't even trying to understand the simple math I laid down for you, despite my best efforts. I used the best analogies I had up my sleeve to make you understand a concept, but you just seem to have skipped it alltogether. You want to get down the hard path? Very well then:

1 atom of hydrogen contains: 1 proton, 1 electron 

Deuterium is an isotope(a variant) of hydrogen which contains: 1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron

1 atom of helium contains: 2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons

1 molecule of deuterium, D2, contains: 2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons.

1 atom of helium and 1 molecule of deuterium contain the same identical particles in the same amounts. Are they the same? No, they are not. They have the same mass but different density, different chemical properties, they are just different. Where does this difference originate from? From how they are arranged.

- Deuterium has 2 nuclei containing 1 proton and 1 neutron each with 2 electron orbiting around them, like this:


- Helium has 1 nucleus containing 2 protons and 2 neutrons with 2 electron orbiting around it, like this:


Do you know how you can pass from Helium to deuterium? By giving it energy. Do you know how you can fuse two nuclei of helium to form 1 nucleus of Berillium (that, for the record, has twice the number of protons/neutrons of helium)? By giving it energy. You kept repeating that I didn't know the process, well here you are, this is how it works. You give things energy, and they change. This is how nuclear fission and fusion work.

Now, if you actually paid attention to my posts, you'd find these words spelled out in more general terms, because my intent was to pass you a simpler and more general idea, not nuclear physics. You don't remember? Here's a few of my old posts:

Basically play by his own rules. If he created everything, if he was the source of the big bang, then it shouldn't be so difficult to replicate a small scale big bang experiment. It shouldn't be so fantasy to transform matter into energy and viceversa. I mean, we can already do that to a certain extent, roughly, but we don't have that much precision. If he can show me that he can manipulate matter at will, manually pick electrons and protons and displace them between atoms, basically if he can show me that he's a "reality surgeon", that he's able to create other realities and also destroy them, then I will acknowledge that he's god. If he can show me that he can transform air into organic matter, make it live and die in front of me, and turn it into a stone, I'll believe he's god. If he can show me that he cuts his own arm or takes out his own heart, lets me touch it and feel it pumping, and then place everything back in his body, I'll believe him. Or well, if anything, I'll at least acknowledge the existence of such a powerful being that I would consider God. It's the same as asking your fellow scientist to replicate the results of his research. Also, he supposedly did something similar already with one of his disciples through the stigmata of Christ but I wasn't there at the time. Can't he do it once more for me?

2) A mol of air is about 25L at room temperature and corresponds to circa 29g. Taking out of the picture energy release from the new bonding/unbonding, 25L of air will produce circa 29g of gold. For the record, 25L is about 1/3 of your volume. If God locally created a vacuum to remove those 25L, the nearby air would instantly be pulled back in to re-equilibrate the system. 10 square miles of air? You'd create a city of gold. You don't even know what you are talking about. Secondly, he can perform this trick in our institute, where we have the machines to reveal the emissions of electromagnetic waves or to inspect a material crystalline nature. If you want I can lay down a precise plan on how to test mr God powers, but that wouldn't satisfy you either because we have to look for God on "his terms". 

Do you know why I asked for this specific example? To play with matter at will? Because this is the ability I would expect from someone who claims to have created everything. If he indeed created everything and was all powerful and almighty, then I'd expect him to:
1) Be able to play with energy at will and arrange subatomic particles at will. Otherwise, why are we "created" the way we are? Why does everything follow a certain order, certain constant laws? Thermodynamically, entropy (the degree of disorder) is continuously increasing. The world is naturally getting more and more chaotic on its own. To be able to create and maintain such local order, you would expect this creator to be somewhat in a position of power to be able to decide these things.
2) If he can play with energy at will and he has so much energy to create countless galaxies, then performing a small scale fusion experiment in a lab by giving energy to sub-atomic particles out of nowhere and absorbing any energy released from the fusion should be a joke. If he wanted to go the hard way, he could even trigger a nuclear fusion and let it run wild inside a properly prepared reactor and a team of experts could stay there and monitor, register and contain the energy released from such an action and study it. 

I had provided you a banal example to pass you an idea, such as that of turning air to gold. I tried to simplify the example to make you understand it more easily. I took out the energy transfer/release because I didn't want to complicate the thing further and being called out on it. And what did you do? You clinged to every possible detail of this experiment, over-complicated everything on your own, started talking about things you didn't know, convinced yourself of being right and of the fact you were lecturing me and then you locked me out of your mind. So here you are, I gave you the full version, are you satisfied now?. If your god can't replicate even a small % of what he claims, then he's a poser, a con, a joker, phony. If he's forced to obey the same laws he created and is restricted by them as much as we are, then he's just a malfunctioning, imperfect, broken god.

If not even this can reach you, then you are lost.

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? 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. 

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.

[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!

[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.

[Drich]

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

if my understanding is so wrong why do your peers not only get it but are using the exact same equasions and numbers I started off with you? Polymath read his last post and it should be very familiar to you, as it is what I have been telling you one or two posts in.

start there

then read my response because I took everything he said and continued the thought.

maybe if you see it explain from someone who knows the terminology you get what is being said..

Read polymath post # 110 then my 113

[Scientia]

@Drich

if my understanding is so wrong why do your peers not only get it but are using the exact same equasions and numbers I started off with you? Polymath read his last post and it should be very familiar to you, as it is what I have been telling you one or two posts in.

start there

then read my response because I took everything he said and continued the thought.

maybe if you see it explain from someone who knows the terminology you get what is being said..

Read polymath post # 110 then my 113

Did you really stop reading after the first line?
Did you seriously not see the avalanche of answers I gave you?
Did you honestly, literally, not see that my post continued and that I actually bothered to address all your points anyways?
Has your faith blinded you to the point you can no longer literally see some type of information? Like real physical blindness that doesn't allow you to see any further and you just see white?

At first I thought I had finally found a decent believer interlocutor that could shed some light on his religion and what were the reasons and logic that brought them to believe in the first place. But now the picture is clearer and all I see is a man blinded by his own faith. Literally blinded. I thought it was strange that you answered to my posts as if you didn't read them. I thought to myself "maybe I didn't explain it well". Then it started getting weirder and weirder that your answers straight out ignored the points I had made. 

My conclusion is that you can't actually see some information, as if you were literally blind to them. It's like your brain was filtering information and showing you white. I really cannot fathom it otherwise.

I can't really get angry at you because I realize you are just victim of your circumstances. You found in "god" a way to cope and it worked, so really, who am I to take that away from you? As they say, "whatever floats your boat, man".

I don't think there is any point in continuing this. A conversation stops being a conversation when all you can hear is your echo.

If you'll ever bother to actually read my post, then you'll find all the answers and may understand. I'll also add that you might be interested to read these pages, even though they may actually do more harm than anything. What I wonder is: do you really wish to understand further? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[Duty]

Socratic Questioning (in brief, why do you believe that?)

[Drich]

@Drich

if my understanding is so wrong why do your peers not only get it but are using the exact same equasions and numbers I started off with you? Polymath read his last post and it should be very familiar to you, as it is what I have been telling you one or two posts in.

start there

then read my response because I took everything he said and continued the thought.

maybe if you see it explain from someone who knows the terminology you get what is being said..

Read polymath post # 110 then my 113

Did you really stop reading after the first line?
Did you seriously not see the avalanche of answers I gave you?
Did you honestly, literally, not see that my post continued and that I actually bothered to address all your points anyways?
Has your faith blinded you to the point you can no longer literally see some type of information? Like real physical blindness that doesn't allow you to see any further and you just see white?

At first I thought I had finally found a decent believer interlocutor that could shed some light on his religion and what were the reasons and logic that brought them to believe in the first place. But now the picture is clearer and all I see is a man blinded by his own faith. Literally blinded. I thought it was strange that you answered to my posts as if you didn't read them. I thought to myself "maybe I didn't explain it well". Then it started getting weirder and weirder that your answers straight out ignored the points I had made. 

My conclusion is that you can't actually see some information, as if you were literally blind to them. It's like your brain was filtering information and showing you white. I really cannot fathom it otherwise.

I can't really get angry at you because I realize you are just victim of your circumstances. You found in "god" a way to cope and it worked, so really, who am I to take that away from you? As they say, "whatever floats your boat, man".

I don't think there is any point in continuing this. A conversation stops being a conversation when all you can hear is your echo.

If you'll ever bother to actually read my post, then you'll find all the answers and may understand. I'll also add that you might be interested to read these pages, even though they may actually do more harm than anything. What I wonder is: do you really wish to understand further? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I seriously read everything you had to say. and you have been closedmindedly repeating yourself for like the last 4 posts. 

Again I completely understand your theortical approach and understand why you have stuck to your guns. But in doing so you have made no effort outside of labling what I have said as being wrong on the simple fact that what I said differs from your take.

What I then moved to do it point out that unknowingly one of your peers polymath who has indeed corrected you on occasion on his own saw I was speaking on an atomic level then took it upon himself to reword everything he had to say converting from mols to atoms and explaining his new conclusion.. but low and behold his new arguement his new numbers and his new conclusion.. were my numbers were my thoughts and my conclusion from the beginning... Then because he had only 1/2 of what I said I walked him through the rest of why I'm saying there is no 1:1 conversion

Then I asked you to not address me and my work but to address his and explain to me how he is wrong.

Aside from all of this, it to me is funny to see how God works here although you may deny it. but God gave me the frame work to my argument right from the beginning. I had no idea of the way things were calculated proper names names of units of measure nor anything proper/technical about any of it. even so he showed me how it would work and I described it simply.. apparently too simply for you to understand it, when you challenged it for the first time I did the research and found when lead/bismuth was turned to gold.. it wasn't done the way it is done in the little box you limited understanding of science allows for. Because again if despite how grand you think your understanding of turning any element into gold.. you have no examples of gold even on an atomic level. Yet in my ignorance of all the proper terms qualifiers pomp and flash that you have I was given the only real life example. given meaning I had never looked any of this up nor heard anything about this yet had an understand that trumps yours. To the extreme that one of your peers literally recreated 1/2 my original argument and fed it back to me. once I enlightened him to the other 1/2 of my argument... he has had nothing to say to me nor you in 2 or 3 days now.

This kinda thing shows the contrast between my limits and God's personal reinforcement.

The same kind thing happened in the engineers meeting. I had 6 men telling me how I was wrong and what could not happen. I did not have the education to refute them only break my concept down to the most simplistic level, which I can only assume because they did not fully understand the fundamentals what I said simply made no sense to them. The same seems to be true here because it seems you are not willing to question the foundations of your knoweledge base, you are not even willing to take on a peer's revision of what I had to say.

You can put this off on me and claim I have closed my mind but in truth I can honestly say I understand your arguement and have given you reason why it is invalid. Primarly because we/science can turn one element into gold on an atomic level. because of this I know what you describe is wrong. because it did not happen this way there wasn't a 1:1 exchange ratio from base element to gold. how can I say this because even the gold created was not the 196U standard, they counted anything created from 190 to 200 in atomic weight as gold when technically 196u is gold. that means trillions of atoms fell below the cut off of 190u or fell above 200u  for ever one atom that fell in the 10u range that right there show a ration of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1

Now that is only the 1/2 the point I made.

The second 1/2 says if God truly was to make air into gold and only used air, then the 'fission' process you describe must also be created from air. so EVEN IF there is a 1:1 in your process, how much air will be used to create this air to gold fission? After all if air does not condense or warm up and rain gold, then there will need be some sort of external process that breaks the molecules and even atoms down and reassembles them to create a stable gold atom.

Because with the bismuth conversion helium was used to literally carve gold out of the bismuth. in your demand God is to make gold out of air and nothing but air can be used, therefore whatever processed used to turn air into gold must also be fueled by said air and not a Tertiary source like with the helium. So my question to you while you were trying to caculate any moral implications about stealing air, rather than simply following along with my simple question was. two fold, one how can you be certain air was converted to gold as even I can literally produce a gold coin out of thin air via slight of hand. 2 how can you possible count the cost of air expenditure to gold? Eg how much air would it take to make a ton of gold.

---

Socratic Questioning (in brief, why do you believe that?)

I do it to force people to think where as most forms of education demand or tell you what to think. for me level of education is less important than having the process which helps you discern your own thoughts.

Plus I think the Jews beat Socrates out on asking questions as a form of teaching by a few thousand years.,..

[Scientia]

@Drich

Drich said: I seriously read everything you had to say. and you have been closedmindedly repeating yourself for like the last 4 posts.

You haven't read one single thing of what I said, which is evident by how you didn't address even one single point of my post. It's not like you failed to address my points, you straight out didn't address them at all. You simply ignored them.

Drich said: Again I completely understand your theortical approach and understand why you have stuck to your guns. But in doing so you have made no effort outside of labling what I have said as being wrong on the simple fact that what I said differs from your take.

So all I've done is labeling what you said as wrong? Did you perhaps skip the pages of explanations, links, references I posted? This is the evidence you straight out ignored 90% of what I wrote. This is why I believe you are mentally blind.

Drich said: What I then moved to do it point out that unknowingly one of your peers polymath who has indeed corrected you on occasion on his own saw I was speaking on an atomic level then took it upon himself to reword everything he had to say converting from mols to atoms and explaining his new conclusion.. but low and behold his new arguement his new numbers and his new conclusion.. were my numbers were my thoughts and my conclusion from the beginning... Then because he had only 1/2 of what I said I walked him through the rest of why I'm saying there is no 1:1 conversion

And this shows how you didn't understand what he was saying. But since you won't believe if I tell you this, let's wait for mr polymath response. There is a 1:1 mass conversion. All you are doing is displacing, rearranging, transforming. Not fucking deleting it from existence. And I've already said this in my previous answer, which I'll quote again:

Scientia said: 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.

Drich said: Then I asked you to not address me and my work but to address his and explain to me how he is wrong.

What you didn't get is that he was saying the same things as me, this is why I don't need to explain that he's wrong. He's not wrong, it's your version of "facts" that collides.

Drich said: Aside from all of this, it to me is funny to see how God works here although you may deny it. but God gave me the frame work to my argument right from the beginning. I had no idea of the way things were calculated proper names names of units of measure nor anything proper/technical about any of it. even so he showed me how it would work and I described it simply.. apparently too simply for you to understand it, when you challenged it for the first time I did the research and found when lead/bismuth was turned to gold.. it wasn't done the way it is done in the little box you limited understanding of science allows for. Because again if despite how grand you think your understanding of turning any element into gold.. you have no examples of gold even on an atomic level. Yet in my ignorance of all the proper terms qualifiers pomp and flash that you have I was given the only real life example. given meaning I had never looked any of this up nor heard anything about this yet had an understand that trumps yours. To the extreme that one of your peers literally recreated 1/2 my original argument and fed it back to me. once I enlightened him to the other 1/2 of my argument... he has had nothing to say to me nor you in 2 or 3 days now.

This kinda thing shows the contrast between my limits and God's personal reinforcement.

And to me it is funny to see how your god knows jackshit since he put you in the wrong framework. You had no idea how things worked and you still don't. You just copypasted numbers from wiki without knowing what you were talking about and that showed up clearly. You only take in whatever fuels your belief and downright ignore any negative feedback. I had already given an answer to this but for some reason you ignored it. Are you undergoing some kind of mental breakdown? Alzheimer? Here, refresh your memories:

Scientia said: 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?

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.

Drich said: The same kind thing happened in the engineers meeting. I had 6 men telling me how I was wrong and what could not happen. I did not have the education to refute them only break my concept down to the most simplistic level, which I can only assume because they did not fully understand the fundamentals what I said simply made no sense to them. The same seems to be true here because it seems you are not willing to question the foundations of your knoweledge base, you are not even willing to take on a peer's revision of what I had to say.

If 6 people tell you that you are wrong, shouldn't you at least wisely listen to their reasons? The peer's revision you are talking about probably refers to polymath's, in which case I again call him here because this is ridiculous. @polymath257

Drich said: You can put this off on me and claim I have closed my mind but in truth I can honestly say I understand your arguement and have given you reason why it is invalid. Primarly because we/science can turn one element into gold on an atomic level. because of this I know what you describe is wrong. because it did not happen this way there wasn't a 1:1 exchange ratio from base element to gold. how can I say this because even the gold created was not the 196U standard, they counted anything created from 190 to 200 in atomic weight as gold when technically 196u is gold. that means trillions of atoms fell below the cut off of 190u or fell above 200u  for ever one atom that fell in the 10u range that right there show a ration of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1

Now that is only the 1/2 the point I made.

You keep saying it wrong again and again. Don't you get it? We've been talking about a MASS balance since forever. MASS. What you talk about here is YIELD. It is DIFFERENT.

THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. DIFFERENT. Can you get this concept in your thick skull? I'll quote myself again, because I've already said this (and you ignored it ofc):

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.

In the above example (random numbers), the yield of ash (please pay attention here, yield SPECIFICALLY of ash) relatively to the starting mass of wood is 10%. PLEASE, pay attention to the WORDING. The YIELD is 10% because out of 100g of wood you get only 10g of ash, which is the product I wanted. This doesn't mean that the mass ratio is 10:100. The total mass of reactants (wood + oxygen) is identical to the total mass of products (ash + volatile oxides). However, the YIELD is only 10%. The fact that I don't give a shit about the oxygen used or the oxides produced doesn't mean they stop existing.

Please, try to understand that you are talking about a different thing. Yield is just a practical way of saying how efficient some transformation is. This doesn't mean that the actual mass balance doesn't work anymore. Let's make one more example:

I take 1 mol (12g) of carbon and react it with 1 mol of oxygen (32g) and I should obtain 44 g of CO2:
C + O2 --> CO2
12 + 32 --> 44

However, if I actually carry out this experiment in reality and measure the CO2 produced, it won't be exactly 44g but less. Does this mean that the first principle of chemistry is invalid? Does this mean that I started from 44g of reactants and ended up with 43g of products, destroying 1g of matter in the process? No. There are many reasons as to why the real yield is lower. Taken straight out of wiki (but I can confirm that any general chemistry textbook has this info):
- Many reactions are incomplete and the reactants are not completely converted to products. If a reverse reaction occurs, the final state contains both reactants and products in a state of chemical equilibrium. (in our example, it means that you have some leftover unreacted carbon that you didn't account for)
- Two or more reactions may occur simultaneously, so that some reactant is converted to undesired side products. (in our example, C may produce CO instead of CO2, screwing the yield)
- Losses occur in the separation and purification of the desired product from the reaction mixture. (to measure the CO2 you need to absorb it on "something" and that "something" may retain some CO2)
- Impurities are present in the starting material which do not react to give desired product (eg you have metal impurities in the starting reactants).

Do you get it now? What you've been talking all this time about is the yield. The mass is always conserved. You've been clinging all this time to a wrong concept.

Drich said: The second 1/2 says if God truly was to make air into gold and only used air, then the 'fission' process you describe must also be created from air. so EVEN IF there is a 1:1 in your process, how much air will be used to create this air to gold fission? After all if air does not condense or warm up and rain gold, then there will need be some sort of external process that breaks the molecules and even atoms down and reassembles them to create a stable gold atom.

Because with the bismuth conversion helium was used to literally carve gold out of the bismuth. in your demand God is to make gold out of air and nothing but air can be used, therefore whatever processed used to turn air into gold must also be fueled by said air and not a Tertiary source like with the helium. So my question to you while you were trying to caculate any moral implications about stealing air, rather than simply following along with my simple question was. two fold, one how can you be certain air was converted to gold as even I can literally produce a gold coin out of thin air via slight of hand. 2 how can you possible count the cost of air expenditure to gold? Eg how much air would it take to make a ton of gold.

This is the same delirium you posted above, for which I'll quote myself again, as I've already addressed it:

Scientia said: 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?

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.