First off, I APPLAUD most of chess.com users. The amount of NONSENSICAL threads has dropped significantly.
Apparently, it hasn't dropped enough.
Seriously, this has to be a troll attempt. And a successful one at that judging by all the serious responses...
lol, Cheater, I think you may be just the most hated and well-known member of Chess.com.
While I disgaree with numerous points in your argument, I might as well applaud your for gaining this much attention through your trolling, lol.
Unfortunately, you need to lrn/2/fisics hardcore, man.
cheater _1 states in his physics primer,"...the sum of the parts cannot exceed the whole." This is a false premise, cheater. (may I call you cheater?) To use your example, let's say we demolished Michelangelo's David to rubble with a sledge hammer. (it hurts to even say it!) The volume of marble would remain constant regardless of orientation, sculpture or rubble. However in this case ( and many others) the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, because the whole has expressive and emotional value which trandsends the material, in this case "X amount of mable." Class dismissed. Test on Friday.
cheater _1 states in his physics primer,"...the sum of the parts cannot exceed the whole." This is a false premise, cheater. (may I call you cheater?) To use your example, let's say we demolished Michelangelo's David to rubble with a sledge hammer. (it hurts to even say it!) The volume of marble would remain constant regardless of orientation, sculpture or rubble. However in this case ( and many others) the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, because the whole has expressive and emotional value which trandsends the material, in this case "X amount of mable." Class dismissed. Test on Friday.
........
.....
*sigh*
Holy crap, Dwaxe! Quit posting your stupid signs everywhere! Cheater_1 didn't do anything wrong on this post!
uhm well actually it is the whole is greater than or equal to the pieces it is made up of. not just greater than. 
SCHOOL IS NOW IN SESSION
Holy crap, Dwaxe! Quit posting your stupid signs everywhere! Cheater_1 didn't do anything wrong on this post!
Apart from violating various laws of nature and mathematics, nothing wrong at all.
Wow something new, cheater finds a topic thats one of the top reoccuring topics on chess.com and starts his own thread about it... Oh wait no, cheater has always done that.
Cheater you are a complete idiot, I thought id also find some flawed statment/logic in our rant even though every single person here makes more sense then you and has proved you wrong.
I would like to eleborate on steven's post; which had alot of good examples. Most scientist agree that dark matter and dark energy is not made of atoms. Ok so maybe lets not call it dark matter so you don't find my example false. Its commonly belived that matter X is made out of one or more of the elemetry but not electrons, protons, and neutorns.
You can tell me that matter X has never been observed directly if you arn't to up to date with your science news but the link below will keep you from making that argument.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/7686/title/Enlightened_Dark_matter_spotted_after_cosmic_crash
So maybe scienctest don't no exactly what dark matter is made of, your still in idiot because you say EVERYTHING is made of atoms.
I refuted this in the original thread, but you must have missed it, so here's a better example.
There are 26 letters in the English alphabet. Are there only 26 words in the English language?
(Only 26 original words in this example!)
cheater 1 i bet you don t have a girlfriend huh
Back to physics. Everything in the universe is composed of atoms. It is found in every substance known to humanity. Now, If my marble sculpture was composed of say 10^11 atoms, then I took a sledgehammer to it, the number of atoms would not suddenly increase. That violates many laws of physics to which I will not go into. Are you all in agreement? Ok then.
Now, down to business. Think of our universe as a 5 gallon bucket. Let's say our universe is composed of 10^80 atoms. No matter how many things are crammed into our universe, NOTHING can exceed 10^80 (parts cannot exceed the whole). Now of course, a number can exist in EXCESS of 10^80, such as 10^80+1, but that number is THEORETICAL. I know, I know, you're all saying that I'm comparing apples to oranges because I'm comparing the # of ATOMS vs the # of MOVES. Not so.
4% of the universe is atoms. 23% is dark matter, 73% is dark energy, the latter two have little information known about them. 100% of all MATTER is atoms. Just a little niggle :]
Secondly, moves are not matter. If ever possible, a human wouldn't think of 10^80 ideas with a result of everything ever ending. The only thing that gets limited by this estimation of 10^80 is the amount of atoms created in the big bang. There are many, MANY things which surpass that number. Simple example would be number of times an atom has collided with another. If an atom collides 10 times, you're at 10^81, and the world hasn't ended. If you're on game number 10^80+1 and you've reached a new position, the world doesn't end.
Going slightly off topic here, but a googolplex isn't a concept. It's a number, with the only restraint being you can't represent it by an amount of something in a jar. You'll have a googolplex of atom collisions if you give enough time. And talking about time, what happened when the universe surpassed 10^80 mini-micro-nano-you-get-my-point milliseconds? 8D
SCHOOL IS NOW IN SESSION
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I can't believe I still read Cheater's forums...
Cheater_1 obviously does not know anything about physics. As earlier posts mention the matter is not only made from atoms, electrons and photons being the simpliest examples.
He also says that smashing a statue with a slegehammer will not increase the number of atoms in the statue. This is true, except if the statue and slegehammer were composed uranium and the force of the hammer blow was sufficient to cause nuclear fission, splitting the atoms into other elements.
Dark matter and dark energy? This sounds like something I read in Issac Asimov's science fiction books. Are they claiming that to be true now? Regardless....
Cheater_1 if you are going to respond to any of these posts respond to this one....
"
Allow me to play DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. Cheater_1, I have a 5 gallon bucket but I can put 500,000 pins into that bucket. I just proved you wrong cheater, I put 500,000 into a 5.
Nice try. Although the number is indeed larger, you have still only have 5 GALLONS of pins.
Assuming the universe is composed of 10^80 atoms, then there is nothing that can have a value LARGER than 10^80. The number of moves may be 10^80-1, but it CANNOT exceed 10^80 under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!"
Didn't you contradict yourself here? The value of the number of pins in the bucket is larger than the volue of its volume, yet it still fits. Likewise, the number of moves may be larger than the number of atoms in the universe yet still "fit" in it. (I still do not understand how a number which represents non-matter cannot fit into a universe. Are you arguing that thoughts are part of the universe?) Also, you could break apart the number of atoms into the number of atomic particles, which you may end up increasing the grand total number to 10^81. So the number of atoms is a somewhat arbitrary number to judge the "volume" of the universe isn't it?
Dark matter and dark energy? This sounds like something I read in Issac Asimov's science fiction books. Are they claiming that to be true now? Regardless....
Yeah. The science-fictional names along with lack of information kinda puts you off, doesn't it :P
There are no physics professors here to unequivocally refute cheater_1. So he'll just keep trolling. Bye bye to this thread now.
If tachyons (those itsy bitsy sub-atomic fast light particle) or tachyonic fields are ever proven, and let's say, move from theoretics to reality and not just some theoretical facet of Bosonic string theory, a number of serious theories are going to be in trouble, especially the belief that nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
What am I saying really....?
That too many put hope and belief in nothing but theory, and foundational premises could be blown away by one substantial experiment and proof of something other than what the science gods and holy grail professors foment on society who is so quick to believe whatever they are told. Sure, some conclusions are proven, but most are not. I'm wondering how long it will be before much of what we believe is stored on the same shelf as the 4 elephant planet support theory or the flat earth theory.
So much of this discussion is rather pointless. It seems there are sites and forums more suited for all this kind of argument which for the most part is anybody's guess. To say the universe consistes of 23% of this and 73% of that is ludicrous. Humanity in its arrogance, pride and sorry to say, even silliness, deludes itself to think it has that equation measured out to such exact proven standards. Utterly insane! We little mortal specks of dust will most likely be proven that we know almost next to nothing of the reality of the whole vast existence of all things and the universe, which in itself can never be proven to be all that there is. On the grandest scale of all existence, Hubble is more likely to be compared to our 4th grade microscopes. There are most likely parameters and plains of existence that would shatter 99% of what we hold near and dear to our scientific hearts and minds, and could very well upset the whole balance of sums and parts.
Just a few thoughts while everybody is tossing physics around...
Have a nice day! 
The number of possible rubik's cubes is a definite number and if you were to stack up a rubik's cube with all possible permutations it could go for thousands and thousands of miles. But is the world filled with rubik's cubes? It is not. You only need one rubik's cube and a few lines of math to have all of the possible positions. And you don't technically need the cube to figure out how many possibilities there are. Now if every chess position was stored into an atom then it would be a significant ammount. But it is not.