Topic: A Couple Questions For Knowledgable Christians (Read 413 times)

jha'dhur · « **Reply #30 on:** April 01, 2006, 07:27:00 PM »

QUOTE

"Chemist Turns Lead Into Gold."
Really? When? Oh, in 1980? Maybe?
"Is Alechemy Real?"
Is it? I don't know. If you're going to ask a mind numbing question to lead into your article then at least take the time to answer it properly.

This post is insidiously stupid. Not only is it blatant spam for About.com but it also contains NOTHING even close to news... unless I'm mistaken and we are in the middle of the Cold War. This is nothing but a few minutes from a 9th grade chemistry lecture from a fake chemist on a crummy site. This is slashdot for special eds and an offense to the digg community as a whole. Marcelo should have his account suspended for posting this pile.

"from a fake chemist on a crummy site."

QUOTE

Seaborg was a great man who in addition to his scientific breakthroughs, made major contributions to the University of California in various areas. He visited my Chemisty 1A class one day and afterwards he would gladly sign periodic tables featuring such elements as seaborgium, californium, and berkelium. Also a proponent of athletics, Seaborg would be excited about Saturday's Big Game -- Go Bears! I'm joyed to seem him mentioned on Digg, albeit for this odd article.

"albeit for this odd article"

QUOTE

About dot com is a circus of information with lots of advertisements

Speaks for itself.

QUOTE

leegleechN: Sure they are, if you consider chemists to work with subatomic and nuclear particles. It's just that the majority of chemists do their work at a higher level.
This is really pretty old, and I don't expect that it would be a very stable gold atom, probably an isotope

The smartest comment yet ..

I wonder why no patent exist for this revelation of yours.

Did about.com cornor the Scientic Information markets since they are the only source of this scientific revelation.

I wonder why...

BOGUS

Whats the name of the process?

Did it produce a stable isotope of gold?

Who witnessed the procedure.

Who independantly verified the results ?

What was the upper threshold of the production yields?

Who wrote the BOGUS about.com article?

Why are they the only ones to present this information.

What (respected) technical journal has reported these findings?

The sky is falling

_iffy · « **Reply #31 on:** April 01, 2006, 09:40:00 PM »

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 12:17 AM)

Umm...there is no infallible evidence of most things
what I believe you meant to say was there is no accurate or trustworthy evidence...in which case...
there is plenty

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 03:08 PM)

OOOOh....Im a complete jerk....trsut them on that
I will call you an idiot when you say something stupid
And...if you just start posting random information...and dont corroborate it....I will call you anything I please

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 1 2006, 04:52 PM)

Hmm...how much do you want to bet....because on this thread alone i can find several where i either corroborated my claims with either biblical passages, encylopedia entries, or books by historians.

can you give a source or evidence that wasn't written by a guy in the past 5 years?
What objective evidence do you have to support your claims?
Do you have a 2000 year old "year in revue" newsletter?
Where are these letters paul wrote? Who has them?
So here's a chance to put all your critics to rest. But...

You can't use the bible a truth. You can't use the internet as fact. Encylipedias don't count as evidence.

THE GOLD SUBJECT

a particle accelerator can add individual electons/protrons/nuetrons.
Scientists can make any atom they want. Even gold.
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)

BTW puckSR can you give a link to the gravity theory thread? I've heard it mentioned a couple times

jha'dhur · « **Reply #32 on:** April 02, 2006, 10:38:00 AM »

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 1 2006, 11:47 PM)

THE GOLD SUBJECT

a particle accelerator can add individual electons/protrons/nuetrons.
Scientists can make any atom they want. Even gold.
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)

BTW puckSR can you give a link to the gravity theory thread? I've heard it mentioned a couple times

QUOTE

Scientists can make any atom they want. Even gold.
I'm not sure exactly what you guys are argueing but science can make gold out of wood. (so to speak)

In theory yes. Atomic structure isnt quite as trivial as that however.

In theory I can fly but in praticallity you know that this is just theory.

I find it highly suspect that no real source has substantiated these findings. I attended a University which had an operating research reactor. The story of lead shields transmutated to gold is simple science fiction.

Why can noone else reproduce his reasearch. A key procedure in the release of scientific discoveries.

Independant verification.

DNA analysis are independantly verified and "reproducable" hence science fact.

Cloning people isnt, hence science fiction. (At the moment)

Making "real" stable gold isnt either. Scientific zealots are a dime a dozen. And this hoax is quite commonplace, and it is the reason there are checks and balances in the scientific community.

BECAUSE people make BS up. I have seen respected scientist go on shows and say how there are alien corpses in Roswell and how these aliens made stealth bomber.

QUESTION:

P.S. There are hundreds of nuclear reactors worldwide why has no other facility substantiated this claim?

@ PUCKSR Hey I got a bigfoot toenail for sale on EBAY I will give you 500 shipped PAYPAL......

puckSR · « **Reply #33 on:** April 02, 2006, 01:32:00 PM »

QUOTE

In theory I can fly but in praticallity you know that this is just theory.

According to what theory exactly can you fly?
unless we are being really loose with the term "i can fly"...in which case...of course you can...its called an airplane...

QUOTE

I find it highly suspect that no real source has substantiated these findings. I attended a University which had an operating research reactor. The story of lead shields transmutated to gold is simple science fiction.

I wasnt referring to the lead shield part of that article...I was referring to the experiment at Berkley...
Now...did i ever claim that he created "stable" gold?

QUOTE

find it highly suspect that no real source has substantiated these findings.

Except you ignored the multiple accounts of this claim....
Does the New York Times count as a "real" source?..
Google it...you will find plenty of sources...

QUOTE

Why can noone else reproduce his reasearch. A key procedure in the release of scientific discoveries.

Independant verification.

DNA analysis are independantly verified and "reproducable" hence science fact.

No one "reproduced his research" because it wasnt research....
if you can create Einsteinum...then you can create Gold....
He didnt do this as research....he did this to "do it"...
it got his school some attention...and it allowed them to claim that they had finally accomplished the great mystery of alchemy...
Im sure anyone else could do this...but why?
Its completely within the known laws of science to be possible
it requires a great deal of money and time to accomplish...
it doesnt produce anything near viable for the synthesis of gold
Someone else already did it first.....

You keep acting like this would shake up the scientific world....
IT DOESNT....
Everyone knew you could do it...especially this guy....since he discovered 5 elements using the same process.
Didnt I post a link to the American Chemisty Society...or some similiar group

QUOTE

BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.

Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.

Ummm...since this entire thread is on religion...
mind explaining this one

jha'dhur · « **Reply #34 on:** April 02, 2006, 02:38:00 PM »

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)

Except you ignored the multiple accounts of this claim....

Post them they are probably as lacking on the specifics as you are.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)

No one "reproduced his research" because it wasnt research....

I am going to start calling you Semantic BOY.Then what was research, experiment, felder garb.
witchery.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)

Except you ignored the multiple accounts of this claim....
Does the New York Times count as a "real" source?..

Yeah it was next to the article on the big foot sighting. How about a recognized, credible scientific journal.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)

if you can create Einsteinum...then you can create Gold....

Funny, since know one else has observed documented or reproduced this "revelation"

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)

Im sure anyone else could do this...but why?
Its completely within the known laws of science to be possible
it requires a great deal of money and time to accomplish...

So let me get this right I have a nuclear reactor, like Iran, I use my nuclear reactor to produce an alement like Plutiniuom 239 (Pu -239) That doesnt exist in nature. So that I can make bombs plus I get gold from the shielding around the reactor.

1) The electricty that I generate and sell from the nuclear power plant,
2) Coupled with the Pu that I generate to blackmail Americans, sell to Al Qaeda or just sit on to keep Bush from invading. You do understand that Pu is the most expensive mineral on the face of the earth.
3) And I get Gold also.
4) Lets see back of the envelope calc.

Electricity $.07per kw-hr
The typical power reactor produces 3000 Mega Watts
Given the heat engine effiecency 1000 Mega Watts of sellable energy.
That amounts to about a million dollars a day in revenue.

Sounds like a f*ing lottery to me.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 02:39 PM)

Didnt I post a link to the American Chemisty Society...or some similiar group

Now you know the answer to that.

P.S. I know you probably dont grasp the significance of the above. So let me just add one final caviat. Most knowledgable physicist and nuclear scientist attribute these claims to the little known fact that there are trace amounts of gold in Lead Ore. .

P.S.S. And given the fact that your "claim" mentions an upper threshold on the mass fraction or mass ratio of Gold to Lead, that is probably the likely explanation of his research/experiment or whatever.

P.S.S.S. I would gander to guess that the concentration he "detected" was not in excess of the natural abundance.

QUOTE

BOGUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was Jesus that forced apostles to eat traditionally unclean foods like swine after they had prayed over it.

Your interpretations are contadictory to the christian beliefs I was raised with.

Ummm...since this entire thread is on religion...
mind explaining this one

Now wouldn't that kill all the fun, Senior Thread Crapper. I am really enjoying you making a total baboon of yourself.

jha'dhur · « **Reply #35 on:** April 02, 2006, 05:59:00 PM »

QUOTE

transmuted several thousand atoms of lead into gold at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His
experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the lead
atoms

I know you are probably not familiar with mass spectroscopy, mass spec is a tool used to analyze samples to the part per trillion (ppt) this is currently the lower end of resolution. TODAY...

1 part per trillion is one atom in 10^9

1000 atoms, there are Avogadros Number (Na = 6.023*10^23) atoms/mole-gram.

10^23 atoms in one gram. A pack of M&M's is a little less than 100 grams.

That is one hell of alot less than 1 ppt. With 1980's technology. And you insist he counted 1000 atoms.

With what technology... Bomb detectors at the airport arent that sensitive.

BULLSHIT....

You sound like a politician now. Trying to understand science. Google want give you understanding....

I am going to talk so you can understand me. Imagine curling a 50 lb bar, I walk by and flick a booger on it
and you notice a discernable difference in the weight of the now

50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
.1 lb dumbell.

You really dont get it.

lordvader129 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 02, 2006, 06:26:00 PM »

10^23 atoms of lead isnt 1 gram, its about 207 grams, plus he said "several thousand" not just 1000, granted this doesnt change the numbers much, but if your going to argue about moles at least learn how to use avagadros number properly

jha'dhur · « **Reply #37 on:** April 02, 2006, 06:52:00 PM »

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Apr 2 2006, 07:33 PM)

10^23 atoms of lead isnt 1 gram, its about 207 grams, plus he said "several thousand" not just 1000, granted this doesnt change the numbers much, but if your going to argue about moles at least learn how to use avagadros number properly

Let me clarify

QUOTE

Avogadro's number can be applied to any substance. It corresponds to the number of atoms or molecules needed to make up a mass equal to the substance's atomic or molecular mass, in grams. For example, the atomic mass of iron is 55.847 amu, so Avogadro's number of iron atoms (i.e. one mole of iron atoms) have a mass of 55.847 g. Conversely, 55.847 g of iron contains Avogadro's number of iron atoms. Thus Avogadro's number NA corresponds to the conversion factor between grams (g) and atomic mass units:

You are correct I mispoke in my hast 10^23 is one mole gram. Nice of you to dissect my words and find a small flaw in my argument. or just a type O since I said Na= X mole-gram on the line before.

And one gram of a substance is Na * AMU

@PUCk 1 amu = Atomic mass The red number on the chart

QUOTE

"several thousand" not just 1000, HUH???

So, in other words you dont sh*t to add. That really changes the conclusion.

@ Vader (Real original)

New "smart guy"

Either you are also of the opinion that a detector that has a sensitvity of 10^9 atoms
can resolve a "few thousand" atoms out of 10^23.

OR

You just have a big mouth. And are trying to save face for your buddy.

Either way....

IPB Image

_iffy · « **Reply #38 on:** April 02, 2006, 07:06:00 PM »

These are all man made using a partical accelerator
IPB Image

...sorry it's not in english.
a partical accelerator is different from a nuclear power plant. In fact it's huge! Acre's huge! America has one, Russia has one, and i think france is building one. (i know it's in europe) They are extreamly expensive to own and operate. Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease,
making it even less economical.

FYI - uranium does exist naturally in nature. The US, China, and Russia each have a mine.
All nuclear power plants are sourced from those three. Russia has said they will sell some to Iran if they can prove they will only use it for power generation.(another topic)

@puckSR just tell me were the original letters are, and who has them and i'll be happy(proof of existance)
jha'dhurNice pic, but don't underestimate the powers of the emporer...

jha'dhur · « **Reply #39 on:** April 02, 2006, 07:10:00 PM »

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 07:44 PM)

jha'dur...

You have completely missed the point....
if the point were in my pocket...you would be on the moon at this point....

Why are you making such a big deal out of this.....?
I dont have any vested interest in the accuracy of being able to turn lead into gold....
Hmmm.....maybe this will make you happy....

jha'dur is correct....this never happened...the burden of proof was on me...and because i lack the time and energy to grab an obscure research paper that probably doesnt exist....I will concede...
No one has ever...ever...and never will....turn lead into gold....

??
Does it matter?
Did it have anything to do with the conversation?
There....i read some articles on the net...they were obviously lies....and i completely retract my comment

Now....lets get back to the topic

I realized shortly after my first post why you selected Puck as a username.

You and your little brother (Vader) are amusing.

QUOTE

( Padme', He didnt say 1000 he said 3 thousand 492)

I know a little bit more about you than you think (thanks to the other users that you commonly antagonize.) I even was sent links to of your MUG and fetishes.

If you dont like the message don't shoot the messenger.

I am suprised you apoligized for your "BOGUSITY" <- new word

I dont require an apology. You believe one thing I believe another.

But, why are you so obsessive. You have pulled this "same game" with a few people.

Google said so, gotta be right.

jha'dhur · « **Reply #40 on:** April 02, 2006, 07:47:00 PM »

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)

These are all man made using a partical accelerator
IPB Image

...sorry it's not in english.
a partical accelerator is different from a nuclear power plant. In fact it's huge! Acre's huge! America has one, Russia has one, and i think france is building one. (i know it's in europe) They are extreamly expensive to own and operate. Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease, making it even less economical.

From the original BOGUS article.

QUOTE

There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.

This would insinuate that neutron bomabardment of lead and the resulting decay chains would produce a daughter element namely gold. Which isn't true.

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)

Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease,
making it even less economical.

Given the nature of paper currency I beg to differ. If N. Koreas was to launch a preemptive strike against US the dollar would go to shit. Our only tangible wealth internationally would be our gold stockpile and a promise to pay(Which Bush is reuning). Originally money was merely a silver certificate. But that is impratical today as a result of inflation.

This is why in times of war people sell paper money for gold certificates and gold skyrockets So.

What is a dollar worth. A U.S. government promise. Therefore the value of gold is inmaterial, the value of the dollar is the kicker.

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)

Thats why people aren't makeing gold. And if they were, the value of gold would decrease,
making it even less economical.

I beg to differ read my last statement.

QUOTE(_iffy @ Apr 2 2006, 08:13 PM)

FYI - uranium does exist naturally in nature. The US, China, and Russia each have a mine.
All nuclear power plants are sourced from those three. Russia has said they will sell some to Iran if they can prove they will only use it for power generation.(another topic)

I said Plutonium not uranium. And to my knowledge US doesnt have any existing Uranium mines. I could be mistaken. And China is trying to negotiate uranium ore purchases from Australia.

Dude I work at a Uranium/ Plutonium facility. I will leave it at that, although I am a new guy I do have the academic credentials to hold my own against PuckSR on nuclear physcis/science.

@Puck
I would point out your misconceptions in gravity/gravitational force/gravitational theory ramblings but I dont have 3 pages in me, nor do I desire your further apologies.

@_iffy or @Vader Question for you:

Is there a limit to the mass number of an element that can be produced by this manner. As illustrated in the chart you posted. (i.e Why has noone surpassed Uun or 110 or more exactly 110 protons) If this entire sysnthesis procedure is a simple as you and Puck suggest.

Hint:
Everything decays to LEAD.

The answer to that question and consideration of the hint will demonstrate why making gold is simply scientific "foolishness" the reason why noone with an IQ above 30 gives it any real credance.

P.S.
I am not trying to insult you or anyone elses intelligence(well maybe Vader), but that is for cock grabbing by proxy. My only allegiance is to the truth.

@DAMAN I haven't forgotten about you. Your qoutes are on the way.

jha'dhur · « **Reply #41 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:14:00 PM »

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 08:52 PM)

It just that Electrical Engineers dont get much of a chance to use chemistry....LOL

I had heard you were an electrical engineer. What cast a shadow of a doubt on the curriculum of your particular university. I that you as an EE student DO NOT GRASP the concept of lower threshold limits in electronics.

The reason you can always beat a 5 mph over speeding ticket is not that radar theory is flawed the detector cant see down to that resolution the electronics arent that efficent.

Anytime you perform any measurement you calibrate your instrument. To determine the error or instrument bias. Thats why counting 3000 atoms from an "X" g sample is just comical.

QUOTE(puckSR @ Apr 2 2006, 08:52 PM)

Im a fair and honest guy...
but you really have to watch IrishBastard/Bluedeath/xmedia....they will pull a Bill O'Reilley....
They dont even bother to "google" it....they just make it up and hope they are correct.....

Funny since one of those guys presented very similiar arguements as I just did to you concernig "making" gold and they just simply gave up on arguing with you.

I am not saying anything they said, I just sat here coach ridden recovering from an ankle injury with a few beers.

I probably come across as an obsessed a hole like you.

QUOTE

They dont even bother to "google" it....they just make it up and hope they are correct.....

Anyone can (in your case) read information(not facts) on the internet and present them without really understanding them and when met with scrutinity not respond.

(God help Us) but when you complete graduate studies you will have to verbally defend your thesis. All those numbers are out the window, and your basic understanding of the science will show. GOOD LUCK Google is not going to be there.

It is my contension, that you and DAMAN are wrong about the Jesus thing also. And you are going to spin it off an a side tangent as well.

QUOTE

Claim #1
I claim that there is a new testament story where Jesus presents an apostle with unclean meet, and he will not eat even after he has seen Jesus walk on water, and he is rebuked.

QUOTE

Claim #2
I do remember also a new testament story where Saul/Paul while accompanied by some of the apostles is beaten by a Greek soldier, he replied to the soldier that he was a "Greek" and that stop beating him

That is my recollection, The fact that I dont have my annotated personal bible is the only reason you can cling to the last straw of credibility that you have.

_iffy · « **Reply #42 on:** April 02, 2006, 08:25:00 PM »