the great alchemy thread

[laconicstudent]

Yes, if we can establish (yet again) that AoS doesn't actually know what alchemy is and move on, that would be swell.

Well, its quite likely that he actually does know, but is pretending not to, that wouldn't be entirely shocking. But that could apply to any of these topics.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The key comment has already been made; it was responded to with irrelevancies, so I'll restate it.
Alchemy is the transmutation of elements by conventional chemical reaction. Chemical reaction can change what atoms are bonded to what other atoms; it does not rearrange the nuclear particles within an atom. Because we now understand that conventional chemical reaction preserves elements rather than transmuting them, we understand that alchemy does not work.
We have also discovered that, with nuclear reaction, elemental transmutation is possible (and even occurs automatically with certain forms of radioactive decay). This process is not alchemy, because it's something other than chemical reaction.
I hope that's clear.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I actually have a book on alchemy somewhere. It became a spiritual pursuit as much as a scientific/chemical pursuit at its height. It's all quite interesting actually.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The key comment has already been made; it was responded to with irrelevancies, so I'll restate it.
Alchemy is the transmutation of elements by conventional chemical reaction. Chemical reaction can change what atoms are bonded to what other atoms; it does not rearrange the nuclear particles within an atom. Because we now understand that conventional chemical reaction preserves elements rather than transmuting them, we understand that alchemy does not work.
We have also discovered that, with nuclear reaction, elemental transmutation is possible (and even occurs automatically with certain forms of radioactive decay). This process is not alchemy, because it's something other than chemical reaction.
I hope that's clear.

Utter nonsense. Rutherford transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium.

One could make the argument that science does not work because alchemy predicted lead can be transmuted into gold.

Scientists were wrong, alchemists were right.

Alchemy is a scientific fact which Darwinists attempt to deny for obvious reasons: alchemy dispels the myth of scientific progress.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Utter nonsense. Rutherford transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium. No nuclear reaction required.

Rutherford transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium. This was a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.
Once science understood the nature of the atom and the nature of chemical reactions, it was clear that by definition a chemical reaction (which deals with the relations between molecular bonds and does not touch the nucleus of the atom) cannot transmute elements. A nuclear reaction can do so; Rutherford did so in this manner.
He did it with science; not with alchemy.
Alchemy is the use of chemical reactions to transmute elements.
Chemical reactions cannot transmute elements.
No one has ever transmuted an element using a chemical reaction.
Alchemy doesn't work.
If the definition of "alchemy" is expanded to included the use of nuclear reactions to transmute elements, then "alchemy" can be done -- just as science predicts and demonstrates. But the alchemical processes of dissolution, purification, and chemical combination don't work to transmute elements, and the ancient pseudoscience of alchemy did not and cannot arrive at its intended goal.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Rutherford transmuted nitrogen into oxygen and hydrogen by bombarding it with helium. This was a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.

Nuclear reactions ARE chemical reactions...

According to Atheist Scripture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction

A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the transformation of one set of chemical substances to another.

***

Once science understood the nature of the atom and the nature of chemical reactions, it was clear that by definition a chemical reaction (which deals with the relations between molecular bonds and does not touch the nucleus of the atom) cannot transmute elements. A nuclear reaction can do so; Rutherford did so in this manner.

The nature of the atom was known before Trojan Times.

"... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

In modern times however scientists denied the existence of atoms.

"I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogmas." -- Ernst Mach, physicist, 1913

Thus ancient alchemists were involved in the business of actual science whereas modern so-called "scientists" are involved in the business of pseudoscience.

He did it with science; not with alchemy.

There is little difference between alchemy and science other than alchemy has always made correct predictions and science has usually made false predictions, e.g. the absurd claim that chemical elements cannot be transmuted.

Alchemy is the use of chemical reactions to transmute elements.

And you claim nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and helium are not chemicals?

Chemical reactions cannot transmute elements.

You claim nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and helium are not chemicals?

No one has ever transmuted an element using a chemical reaction.
Alchemy doesn't work.

Alchemy can transmute elements and according to you science can't.

Science has failed to teach people that elements can be transmuted according to alchemy.

Alchemy works and obviously science doesn't.

If the definition of "alchemy" is expanded to included the use of nuclear reactions to transmute elements, then "alchemy" can be done -- just as science predicts and demonstrates. But the alchemical processes of dissolution, purification, and chemical combination don't work to transmute elements, and the ancient pseudoscience of alchemy did not and cannot arrive at its intended goal.

Alchemy is simply the transmutation of elements. You are rewriting history in order to support Darwinist myths of progress.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The nature of the atom was known before Trojan Times.

Incorrect.

There is little difference between alchemy and science other than alchemy has always made correct predictions and science has usually made false predictions, e.g. the absurd claim that chemical elements cannot be transmuted.

Quote five predictions of ancient alchemy, from alchemical sources, that have proven to be true.
Give a reliable reference to the claim that the majority of scientific predictions have been false. Make sure to explain the process by which you quantified the entire field of scientific predictions.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Alchemy is simply the transmutation of elements.

No. Alchemy is a specific discipline by which substances were purified, isolated through heat and precipitation, and physically mixed in an attempt to produce other substances. No alchemist ever engaged in any process other than a molecular or physical reaction (heating, cooling, filtering, mixing), and no alchemist ever engaged in any process that could result in a nuclear reaction.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Incorrect.

Why are you in denial of the historical record?

Because the historical record contradicts evolution?

"... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

Quote five predictions of ancient alchemy, from alchemical sources, that have proven to be true.

1. Atoms exist.
2. Chemical elements can be transmuted.
3. Gold can be made from lead.
4. Lead and mercury are next to gold on the periodic table of elements.
5. Scientists are in denial of actual facts.

Give a reliable reference to the claim that the majority of scientific predictions have been false. Make sure to explain the process by which you quantified the entire field of scientific predictions.

"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? ... If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth?" -- Naomi Oreskes, historian, 1999

"Science, we are told is tentative. And given the history of science, there is every reason to be tentative. No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by theories that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word. But if science is tentative, scientists are not. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn rightly noted, it takes a revolution to change scientific theories precisely because scientists do not hold their theories tentatively. Thus, in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn quotes with approval Max Planck, who wrote: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it's opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it's opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'" -- William A. Dembski, philosopher, March 16th 2000

"Some people in each successive generation believe that theirs is the one that has at last seen everything clearly, that their insights point to the truth, the final answer. Yet scientific discovery marches on and today’s truth will become tomorrow’s anecdotes." -- Gerrit L. Verschuur, astronomer, 2003

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

No. Alchemy is a specific discipline by which substances were purified, isolated through heat and precipitation, and physically mixed in an attempt to produce other substances. No alchemist ever engaged in any process other than a molecular or physical reaction (heating, cooling, filtering, mixing), and no alchemist ever engaged in any process that could result in a nuclear reaction.

That opinion with no supporting evidence is irrelevant because it's a fact that chemical elements can be transmuted.

If you don't understand chemistry and physics there are websites on the internet such as About.Com that can explain it to you.

Turning Lead into Gold

Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved!

 

[Bushido216]

A chemical reaction is a process that leads to the transformation of one set of chemical substances to another.

Elements aren't chemicals. Chemicals are the combinations of elements. Chemistry refers to the relationship between those elements as chemicals.

The simplest form of this relationship I can give by way of example is that two hydrogens + one oxygen (elements) = one molecule of water (a chemical).

A "chemical process" would be adding and subtracting elements in your chemical mixture until you arrive at the desired result. However, you cannot fundamentally change the elements involve, since by definition elements are determined by their nuclei. A chemical process involves only the valence of each element (the electrons). The nuclei isn't involved at all.

Thusly, lead will always be lead and gold will always be gold whenever you are only altering their electrons[ii] which is the case in a chemical process such as alchemy.

A nuclear reaction refers to an elements nucleus, hence the similarity in the terms. A nuclear reaction will alter an element by changing the contents of its nucleus (the protons and neutrons). This process affects an element in a way that a chemical reaction does not and can not. Thusly, you can create gold from another element simply by changing the number of protons in its nucleus.

(It should be here noted that an element is defined by how many protons it has in its core. The difference between H and He is one proton, roughly).

I hope this helps dispell your confusion.

Though I should note that my last chemistry lesson was eight years ago in 10th grade, and I'm pretty certain I got all that right...

 

[Bushido216]

That opinion with no supporting evidence is irrelevant because it's a fact that chemical elements can be transmuted.

If you don't understand chemistry and physics there are websites on the internet such as About.Com that can explain it to you.

Turning Lead into Gold

Your problem is that you're conflating two different concepts.

Can lead be turned into gold? Yes. Can it be done through alchemy? No.

Like:

Can light be bent? Sure. Can light be bent through an ether? No.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Elements aren't chemicals.

LOL.

In fact, they are.

Chemical Elements.com - An Interactive Periodic Table of the Elements

Do you also claim 2+2=5?

Chemicals are the combinations of elements.

No. Chemical compounds are the combinations of elements.

Chemical compound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thusly, lead will always be lead and gold will always be gold whenever you are only altering their electrons[ii] which is the case in a chemical process such as alchemy.

Alchemy is an atomic process.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Your problem is that you're conflating two different concepts.

Can lead be turned into gold? Yes. Can it be done through alchemy? No.

That is absurd. Alchemy is the scientific process by which lead is transmuted into gold, i.e. there is no difference between atomic physics and alchemy.

Can light be bent? Sure.

Sure it can't.

Light cannot be bent because it is alleged photons have zero mass and it is also alleged that f=ma.

Can it be bent by ether? No.

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, May 1920

 

[SithDoughnut]

Light cannot be bent because it is alleged photons have zero mass and it is also alleged that f=ma.

So water does not exist? Interesting.

 

[Bushido216]

Black holes.

 

[rockaction]

Light cannot be bent because it is alleged photons have zero mass and it is also alleged that f=ma.

f=ma is Newton's flawed theory. try relativity next time.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So water does not exist? Interesting.

He was talking about gravitational lensing because he mentioned ether.

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, May 1920

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Black holes.

Do not exist.

"...the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1939

"Even mainstream scientists admit that at singularities the ‘laws of physics’ break down. It would be more accurate to say that their own theories break down." -- David Pratt, natural philosopher, 2005

"Physics is first and foremost the study of objects.. Without objects, we can have no Physics. The black hole does not belong in Physics because it is not a physical object. It is, rather, an irrational concept and as such does not even belong in Philosophy. The astronomers should not be pointing their telescopes to the skies in search of black holes. They should be reading the definition of the word object." -- Bil Gaede, physicist, April 2009

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

f=ma is Newton's flawed theory.

Duh.

"The mathematical proofs of Newton are completely erroneous." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1942

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

try relativity next time.

Even more idiotic.

"With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, May 1920

"The theory [General Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, July 1935

"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001

"...the basic knock against general relativity would be that it's geometry, it's not physics, and so I think this is a 300-pound gorilla that's sitting in the room with redshift written on him and nobody sees him and this is why they don't see it." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, June 2007