Catharsis

I can understand the principle as Wikipedia leads me to believe (how heavy things are “mass”). But then I start thinking about trapped air in a really thick container and then; how dose the water know it’s in there - which makes me think of (who said it?) the atmospheric pressure - the air wanting to make it back to “it’s own atmospheric pressure; also the air is not heavy (again - like before) so you really got two things going on. But then there’s all this about “displacement” - unless all this business about displacement is about the waters “Water Tension” then it all comes together. So in closing: if your talking about floating on top of the water your talking about “displacement”. If it’s going under - then your talking about mass, like the formula on Wikipedia. If you’re talking about air then it’s this atmospheric pressure stuff and or mass if the air is in something.. But that’s it for me - I’m going to grab an aspirin...

So the transfer of heat is having the water electrons “get” excited by surrounding electrons (not their exchange of electrons)? In other words taking away the movement (energy) of the surrounding electrons (hence reducing the surrounding electrons movement). Yes?

Hi... Now I just wanna confirm the belief that I have, or would like to know that I need to revise it.... Sweating and it’s ability to cool the body: From what I understand the water rises to the surface of the skin collecting electrons from (it’s) surrounding area “evaporating” hence cooling the body by taking the electrons from the surrounding area. No? Any comments suggestions and opinions will be greatly appreciated.... Thank you in advance...

Yea - it’s called the Holiday’s.... No but seriously - I read in a national geographic that some investigators over heard some REAL cannibals having a discussion during a ritual “eating”. Yea it’s a one of a kind recording - found in some safe buried away somewhere.... They say that on the tape - It’s said that one cannibal said to the other “I can’t stand my mother in law” (translated) and the other cannibal replied “well, then try the potatoes”....

Yea, I second amotion on all above advice - however, I know the feeling of having to haul yourself to a doctor when more times than not, the problem is growing pains (or aging pains) depending on what side of “35” your on. I think back to all the trips I’ve made to the doctor - and in the end, it’s always been time and the bodies own healing ability that’s been the “prescription”. Try some exercise and weight loss (if needed) and if it still doesn’t go away - pick up the phone... It’s said that the body makes different types of protein when under different types of stress (like starving). A cleaner more efficient protein is made... The foot note goes to Crowell & Maynard 1935 and Taylor 1995...

Yea from what I know it’s this “air” business; however, what I keep in my mind is this: What is warming up? Well it’s brining moister to the joints and it’s that moisture differential that ends up, drying up (for the next day) that (to me) creates the pockets of air. Sounds about right. No? So to me I think of it as a dry sponge VS. a moist one. Dose any of this lead to arthritis (early or otherwise)? I don’t know - but for me - a little warming up [“what?” Bring moister to the area] would probably go a long way.... Also: the idea behind holding your breath when “squatting” is to increase internal pressure, meaning compacting muscle against bone (like what a wight belt is for) “via” your blood vessels - and “remember” every cell in your body has a capillary next to it. is a good thing. However not the greatest thing for your brain. So finding that middle ground of blowing your air out during a strain (lift) seems to be the common advice; might help with “squatting”... More blood flow more moisture, more pressure.

Yea, (you know) I don’t know why I didn’t think of going to Wikipedia in the fist place .... But yup, right there was the answer.... And it looks like I was right - it kinda get’s squeezed up to the top.... But I certainly must say - “WOW” how POWERFUL some trapped air is - inside something like metal even. To be able to keep ton’s and ton’s of metal afloat (like in a battleship) REALLY sends my mind for a loop. I mean so much so - that it makes me question the explanation.... So let me get this straight: I have some trapped air in between some gigantic slabs of steal - and in by doing that - the “air” molecules weigh “{so much more less}” than water molecules that the air will not let the “slabs of steal” sink (to a point)? I think what amazes me - is that the air molecules are so “removed” from the surrounding water (because of the meatal) that you would think there could be no more connection between the two. I mean to be so powerful, you would think you could put an air bubble in you hand and use it as a quick rescue to the surface (type of thing). You know - come to think of it..... Why is trapped air inside something so Powerful - but having it trapped under my shirt or something of the sort doesn’t seem to be so powerful? I think that’s a very interesting question.... Any suggestions, comments and opinions are greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance....

Hi... I was thinking how fascinating “buoyancy” is; and I came to the conclusion that instead of thinking of something floating to the surface “in water” it’s better to think of it being squeezed to the surface. (and was wondering if I would be wrong?) Now I’ll walk you through my thinking behind this (and of course keeping in mind - that I’m just guessing, based on what I know). So let’s get the ball rolling: First of all - I know - “they don’t know” exactly what gravity is They say that it’s a warping of space and time (meaning, it’s not electric, chemical, magnetic and or “whatever”)... It’s this - what they call - a warping of space and time ... Now what that means: is that as long as you have something (any kind of matter taking up space) it will have gravity. In other words - if I were to press with my finger down on a bed sheet that was tightly pulled over a bed making an impression down into it and then rolled a marble around - it would circle around and around and make it’s way down toward the center “my finger” (like a toilet bowl full of water). Now if you were to take that example and apply it to a thee dimensional example - then you would get what it means to “warp time and space” and to get gravity. (No?) So with that said and done - what makes air float and not only float but what makes it float up? Meaning how dose it know what up is? Also what makes it so powerful? So I asked this question: what are the properties of buoyancy - when you take a handful of air and apply so much metal that it must sink? Meaning, what is it when you have a handful of air wrapped with just aluminum foil that will float without any problem to something that has so much metal (thick around it) that it will sink? So hopefully, I know what makes an Atom of air different from a solid or liquid. And that is - the Amount of protons and neutrons at the center (no?). Meaning - if you were to take a bucket of rocks and place at the bottom, a rock made out of plastic - it would wanna rise to the top because it wasn’t as heavy. And what I’m thinking is that - Another way of looking at it would be, that (maybe) it gets squeezed to the top by all the heavier rocks (is this wrong in thinking of it like that?). So with that said and done - the difference between the handful of air with all the metal around it just ends up being heavier than the water is able to squeeze “up” against it - and the air isn’t helping because there isn’t enough to counter balance the meatal’s weight (like a Bank account) not enough “credit” to balance off the debits... So in closing: Am I correct in thinking of it like this? And any insight into the concept of “up” would also be helpful... Although, I guess it has to do with moving away from the center of a mass.... (No?) Any suggestions, comments and opinions will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance....

I thank you good fellow...

Wow, thanks - you learn something everyday.... Boy, did I have things backwards.... So while I have your attention, let me ask - are buffers strictly for ions or are they used with other particles? Comments, suggestions and opinions are appreciated Thank you in advance....

Well - I just wasn’t to sure if Ions had a clear “distinction” to the service they provide. Kinda like Carbon (from what I understand): Carbon’s distinct service is to form a backbone for all other atoms to attach too (no?). Not to say that carbon can’t be used in other way’s - but to me, I would say that’s it’s hallmark, seems to be a type of backbone, for all else... So, with that in mind - I didn’t know if “only” ions and their greater propensity to bond were the ones behind motion “in with” atoms? What do I mean by motion? Well - I’m under the impression that, like for instance, water helps act as a “transport” (a catalysis) moving things around in the body (no?). Also like pH balance when something “dissolves” (isn’t that a kind of motion?)... So in closing; would that all be possible if it weren’t for ions? (I mean, I guess the answer would be no) - so could it be said that the “hallmark” of ions is to create the activity found “in with“ atoms.... Meaning, compared to other particles. In another way: if someone were to ask me what is the major difference between an Ion and a particle (the main functional difference) - could I say (outside of saying one carries a charge and the other doesn't) that without Ions we really wouldn’t have the “motion” of atoms....

HI... Now, I know ions are particles that carry a charge - then there are particles that are neutral (no?). So my question is: is there something extremely “more” monumental about ions then there is about neutral particles? Or are they both basically on the same playing field? Example: are ions the “particles” that are responsible for getting particles to move around? And are ions the only ones able to bond with other particles? Any suggestions, comments and opinions are appreciated... Thank you in advance...

Yea - wow - how interesting.... To think, that the only thing that separates the atoms of our body from the atoms of the air from the atoms of the wall are the “formations” of the electrons... It makes me realize that there’s no in between stuff going on - meaning: that there are various “rather” large “demarcation” areas. Like life and it’s atoms are done in batches rather than a gradual scale.... I don’t know if it means anything - but it’s a point... Thanks for all the input... It’s funny how all of a sudden something so complicated can have a very basic side to it....

Hi... Well, more specifically, I was wondering what was it that would keep (let’s say hypothetically speaking - meaning, just grabbing two elements off the “table” at random) Thulium from “joining” with Polonium (hoping they don’t mix in the first place). Because I just wasn’t sure if it was all based on the electron “make up” per atom or is there some other “discriminating” factor (or force) that would keep and or allow different atoms to stay apart or join {other than the electron formation}. Because if it was just the electron “make up” (formation) it would seem that you could “force fit” some of the bad boy’s (atoms) together by taking away or adding some of there electrons (maybe some how).... And if you did would they bond? However I know about them just not spinning in a circle - they can spin in “shapes” spending more time on one side than the other etc.... (not to mention this business of “string” theory they got going on). So I can imagine the “compatibility” issues from having it be just the electron formation. So in closing - I was just wondering if maybe there was still something else other than the electrons that “tied” everything together or kept them apart?

Hi.... I’m just thinking that if atoms arrange themselves with each other by exchanging electrons (no?).... Then what makes them distinguish between each other? Meaning why don’t the atoms of my hand (whatever they may accumulatively be) mix with the atoms of a wall, as I lean up against it? Any suggestion, comments and opinions are appreciated. Thank you in advance....

yea, wow - it shows you that you can’t ASSUME (at least not without testing).... Oh well no big deal I’ll just go and re-word it... Outstanding good fellow...

I thought I could understand more by trying to “reverse” engineer things - but as usual I made a U-turn into the twilight zone. I just wanted to be confident in making the statement that Na and Cl are just one of the many “basic” properties that can be found in water (in general). But, by maybe adding more Na and Cl to the mix or by adding and taking away their electron (respectfully) they become salt. Meaning I have a collection of General Ed books that will be required for a four year degree in “General Ed”. Their all laid out in front of me (the whole four years). Lets’ say this is water and all it’s properties that can be found in a glass of water.... Now, two of those books are called Na and Cl. Are they there awaiting to have an electron added and taken away (becoming salt) - and or - awaiting to have MORE Na and Cl to be added before the electrons can “add and subtract” becoming salt (respectfully) - needing more in order to increase the “propensity” (odds).... Or do they just not exist in a state of “no” electrical charge, meaning Na and Cl and rather appear as a by-product of some “happening”... (as I think your eluding too). Like electricity is a kind of by-product - its not going to exist on it’s own without something causing it. So for this example, I could say electricity dosn’t exist. (only as a by-product of something)... So in closing: That’s what I didn’t know about Na & Cl - maybe they don’t exist in that form on their own just floating around - maybe they actually just appear as a by-product during a process to become “charged” and eventually salt... (like I think your saying). So in my sperate blog I keep (just for fun and to give me something to do at my job as 24hour live in heath care provider to a 95 year old man) when I made the statement that Na and Cl are just basic “parts” of water like two of the text books for General Ed (example) I was WRONG. (I think, from what your saying). *********************** My biology book used the term electronegative - (I agree, I couldn’t find it either on a Google search) but the author of the book used it, so I thought I would Monkey see monkey do.... In a hydrogen bond, an electronegative atom weakly attracts a hydrogen atom that is covalently bonded to a different atom. I guess it’s a matter of semantics....

Ah, thank you... I get the the salt water part (electronegativity holding them together) - but why would Na and Cl be unlikely? What is it when it doesn't have the electronegativity bond? Any suggestions comments and opinions are appreciated. Thank you in advance

And if I were to drink and look at such a mix, would it taste salty or look cloudy? And would this combination occur easily in the everyday world?

I guess the title covers it... I'm just doing some thinking and would like to know what that combination would be? I know if the H2O evaporates you end up with salt? So what is it before the H2O evaporates? Any suggestions, comments and opinions are greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.... Catharsis