@TM Ambrose,
"It's only 71% (hydrogen) in the sun not 74%". Do you have a link/source for that? A google search readily produces
"Sun is ~74% hydrogen"; see
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun .
"I've mentioned this before, and you corrected yourself. You going back on this..." That's false. Produce the post where this occurred. You won't be able to.
"The total universe is between 73%- 75% and is definitely not 74% based on probability." What?! That's false and that statement doesn't make sense. Google:
hydrogen percentage of elemental mass of universe. See
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen .
Do you claim to be a scientist? If so, what are your credentials? You're an atheist, right? And the
proof of GOD is really what freaks you out, right?
Let's take the time(47) to have this
hydrogen 74% question nailed on(74) the next few posts(74), Ok?
Yeah the same exact article mentions the protostar (which includes all gasses trapped via gravity in the sun) is 71%. Since we consider the atmosphere in the mass of an object we consider those part of the sun. Read the article again, and you'll see that it says the protostar is 71% hydrogen (Basically all those heavier atoms are around the sun and we still count those into the math. If we count only the mass of the solar body it's actually 75% ish. Of course there is some error that prevents it from being a definitive percent and the fact that fusion occurs which converts hydrogen to helium which means the exact composition is changing). This is reflected again in the same wikipedia article you posted.
The total universe can be found to be between 73-75 percent and that is because we include errors in our calculations. some sources will go on the low end some on the high. The wikipedia article you linked says 75% which means your estimate of 74% isn't even consistent with your sources, another thing a scientist would never do. We also always consider error in science and because of probability it probably has a decimal, which verifies my point of it not being 74%
I am a scientist. I've been published in Nature (genetics is what I normally deal with but i have a background in physics due to my father, and a background in chemistry because it was my job for 5 years of my life) and while i'm still in uni I work in a lab, and have the credits needed for my degree. I haven't graduated because i get more money and education staying. I'm an agnostic atheist, one is a knowledge claim one is a belief claim (which you know nothing about). Proof doesn't freak me out, but because proof doesn't exist in science (science never aims to prove, it only aims to support or not support. It's the same reason a lot of scientist use words like "about, approximately, error". ), only evidence, I think your logic is flawed. I'd prefer a world where a god exists but I don't pretend to lie to myself. If you actually knew quantum physics you'd know that anything outside of a universal system can't affect the system because it's a closed system. Since we don't observe energy coming in or energy coming out we basically know there is no outside influence (basically. It's a bit more complex than this, and to be honest I'm still trying to comprehend gravity in respect to quantum physics). If evidence of a god existed and was independently verifiable my position would change, but since no such evidence exists in any sense (Not even logically) I do not believe. As I mentioned earlier knowledge is a subset of belief, and since I don't believe a god exists, and because I have integrity I'd rather say I don't know, partially because no evidence of a god would be independently verifiable which is necessary for me to know something. But honestly it doesn't matter about my credentials. Anyone who is reading this can see who has the more stable understanding of epistemology and the one opposite of him whose name is Brad Watson.
You're a little too dumb to understand this, and probably have preconceived notions about other people. Seeing as in my short 20 years i've put more thought into this than you will ever put into anything in your life (because you typically take the first result on google instead of doing deeper research) I look down on you.
Edit: I'd also like to point out that people in physics never use percentages because they get very particular with large numbers and very irrelevant with small numbers. Typically we just set up a ratio. Percentages really can't be used for anything, but i know laymen like it because it makes them feel smarter. I made this mistake coming from biology to physics in my first paper when I wrote in a percent and was told by a professor that percents aren't used in physics. I rarely use them in biology either because they're not really useful for anything except error.
To be honest dude bro
@Brad Watson_Miami I think you try way to hard to get science, but in the end you're just one of those guys who tries to throw in flowery language while ignoring the actual material. The reality of the situation is, no matter what I tell you you're broken mind won't allow you to accept it because in your world view you're the only one able to decide actual numbers. you won't read this you'll only skim it. Science is more than just one number, and not to sound cheesy but to quote Shakespeare "There is more in heaven and earth than there is in your philosophy." as well as "To throw perfume on the rose, to gild the lily is just fucking silly" (i don't really know Shakespeare. I'm more of a modern theater performer). To put it bluntly, you taking this hypothesis and exerting it as an absolute is oversimplifying how ridiculously awesome the entirety of reality is, and merely tries to make it more beautiful, when the natural beauty of it is much more exciting.
The only reason, I put any effort into these post is because I care about what I do. Your limited effort, your copy paste jobs, your only taking the first result on google, and cherry picking shows you not only don't care but you presuppose your position which makes you a bad scientist from the start.
What is "74.9 rounds"? I've never heard of that.
This is evidence of how dumb you are. Any school will teach you that at .5 and above you round up (which means go up to the next integer.) and below .5 you round down (which means take the next lowest integer).
I believe this is evidence of your lack of education.
, but I think it should be clear to everyone else that any discussion will immediately immolate due to Brad's, er, "style" of thinking.