[guest39538]

Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   

You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.

Not a quote , in my own words.   The total mass of an object can be collected in test tubes and guess what?  the total amount of collection adds up to the same total mass. 

Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed ,   

[Bored chemist]

Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed

Stop doing magic.
If the tubes are empty, nothing will grow in them.

[guest39538]

Huh?  That is two separate equations  , have you been drinking this evening or summit?

I assumed they were two different equations .
On that basis I manipulated them using pretty standard algebra.
The outcome is that only one of the equations can possibly be true.

So, at least one of the equations you posted is wrong.

Like I said, "Since you seem to think it's "easy as that", but don't realise  that what you post is obviously wrong, it's clear that you don't belong in the world of science."

Are you mad or summit?   They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.

S + 1 = Δ   
S + 1 = S+1=ΔS

S - 1 = Δ

S-1 = S-1 = ΔS

S+1 ≠  S - 1

[Bored chemist]

It looks like you misquoted Lavoisier.
"He also discovered the law of conservation of mass that is nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. It says that the mass of the final products of a chemical reaction is the same as the reactants’ ones. Today, this principle is the basis of modern chemistry."
From
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

And the point remains that his rule doesn't have an "except" in it- because reality doesn't need one.

[The Spoon]

Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   

You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.

Not a quote , in my own words.   The total mass of an object can be collected in test tubes and guess what?  the total amount of collection adds up to the same total mass. 

Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed ,   

Yet you claim that an increase in wildlife is increasing the mass of the earth thus causing heating. Despite the fact that there has been a decrease in most species and the earth is for all intents and purposes a closed system. In the example of a test tube, if it is closed and something grows, there is no change in mass, which is applying Lavoisier's quote directly.

Anyway, I thought you were giving up again?

[Bored chemist]

They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.

You said they did, so it looks like you are the one who is mad, since you are now disagreeing with yourself.
You said that S+1 = Delta and
S-1 = Delta

Well, obviously, Delta = Delta.
So S+1 =S-1

Or were you just posting word salad again?

[guest39538]

It looks like you misquoted Lavoisier.
"He also discovered the law of conservation of mass that is nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. It says that the mass of the final products of a chemical reaction is the same as the reactants’ ones. Today, this principle is the basis of modern chemistry."
From
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier

And the point remains that his rule doesn't have an "except" in it- because reality doesn't need one.

But there is an except  though, when mass is created by growing, the mass of the body the mass is growing on is increased by the mass of the growth. Things that are growing do not borrow ''clay'' from the ground to grow.   

[guest39538]

They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.

You said they did, so it looks like you are the one who is mad, since you are now disagreeing with yourself.
You said that S+1 = Delta and
S-1 = Delta

Well, obviously, Delta = Delta.
So S+1 =S-1

Or were you just posting word salad again?

Delta is not a constant, Delta is a variate, so no, delta does not equal to delta.

[Bored chemist]

when mass is created by growing,

But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.

delta does not equal to delta.

Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.

[guest39538]

when mass is created by growing,

But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.

delta does not equal to delta.

Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.

I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say. 

[guest39538]

-1....................0...................+1


(S+1)+(S-1)=0

(S-1)+(S+1)=0

(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2

[Bored chemist]

But there is an except  though, when mass is created by growing, the mass of the body the mass is growing on is increased by the mass of the growth. Things that are growing do not borrow ''clay'' from the ground to grow.   

To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.

Did you really not know that?

[The Spoon]

when mass is created by growing,

But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.

delta does not equal to delta.

Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.

I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say. 

Thing is, bored chemist is correct. Which you would knowif you actually bothered to learn something, such as about the works of Lavoisier which you mentioned...

[Bored chemist]

(S+1)+(S-1)=0

(S-1)+(S+1)=0

(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2

I guess two out of three isn't too bad.

[Bored chemist]

The original experiment was done rather before Lavoisier's time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont#Career_as_chemistry_pioneer

At the time there was no recognition that a gas might weigh something.
It seems that Thebox's understanding of science is stuck in the 17th century

[guest39538]

(S+1)+(S-1)=0

(S-1)+(S+1)=0

(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2

I guess two out of three isn't too bad.

That's 3/3 and you know it and I know it.   

[guest39538]

The original experiment was done rather before Lavoisier's time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont#Career_as_chemistry_pioneer

At the time there was no recognition that a gas might weigh something.
It seems that Thebox's understanding of science is stuck in the 17th century

I know gases have mass my friend, my N-field holds them together.   

[guest39538]

when mass is created by growing,

But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.

delta does not equal to delta.

Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.

I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say. 

Thing is, bored chemist is correct. Which you would knowif you actually bothered to learn something, such as about the works of Lavoisier which you mentioned...

I am aware of the experiment and know not to have a milk diet, anything else I really need to know?

[guest39538]

But there is an except  though, when mass is created by growing, the mass of the body the mass is growing on is increased by the mass of the growth. Things that are growing do not borrow ''clay'' from the ground to grow.   

To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.

Did you really not know that?

I think  I know that mass can transform because E=mc²

[guest39538]

p.s My predictive insight allows me to answer a question you have not asked , but yes

Δt=ΔS

ΔS=Δt

This one is equal , the variate/change of time = variate/change of entropy

variate/change of entropy = variate/change of time


I have no values if you notice so there is no numeric result ..   not like -1 which is a given value R³ real number relative to 0.