jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 This post will probably upset some people. This is the speculation part of your forum. It is at present considered that a CO2 molecule has a double covalent. I tend to doubt this. I see no reason why an O2 molecule would go from being ionic to covalent. Why I suspect this is because in photosynthesis and the upper troposphere H2O, CO2, CH2O and O2 are found. Myself, I do not understand why the hydrogen elements would be needing to separate from an oxygen molecule just to reform with it to allow for formaldehyde or glucose. Maybe someone can explain this ?
conway Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Do you purpose an alternative? I would think if one existed it would be in how we define the philosophy of a "bond". What really is the difference between sharing and stealing? If an ionic bond is one in which both nuclei "steal" electrons. If a covalent bond is one in which both nuclei "share" electrons. What is the philosophical difference between these "bonds" quantum and classically speaking?
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 You haven't provided any explanation for why you do not believe CO2 to consist of two C=O double bonds. As for the rest, you don't have to understand it for it to be true. Different conditions can and will lead to different chemical outcomes and the resulting compounds may then go on to react themselves in other ways, hence the array of compounds we see in nature. I'm not sure where you get the idea that O2 is ionic.
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 Conway, With O2, while it's actually called a diatomic bond, I don't think that CO2 has to covalent bonds. With CH2O and O2, all that need to happen is for the carbon element to move from the CO2 molecule to the H2O molecule. Want glucose > C6H12O6 ? That is 6 formaldehyde > CH2O molecules. One thing I am willing to consider is that a carbon element shares a field with an O2 molecule the same way our Moon shares a field with the Earth. If so, an H2O molecule has the kinetic potential to separate a carbon element from an O2 molecule. If so, this would require less energy than breaking a covalent bond or 2 as a CO2 molecule is supposed to have 2 such bonds.
conway Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I thought about comparing the worlds of solar bonds and atomic structure for a while. But I lost it once I started studying QM atomic structure. Tall order. Maybe a varying "point of reference" in molecular perspective could help describe the change in bonds between these atoms that your talking about. I don't know enough of chemistry or QM atomic structure to go any further however.
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 jlindgaard, With respect, it is obvious to me that you do not know very much about chemistry or physics. Certainly not enough to know about the systems of which you speak and speculate about. Before getting any more carried away by this idea of yours, I would strongly suggest picking up a chemistry text and reading through it or educating yourself in some way. The gap in your knowledge that you are demonstrating through your posts shows a misunderstanding (or lack of one) at a fundamental level and this is not something that is easily remedied in a thread such as this.
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) hypervalent-iodine, Can you do me a favor ? Could you read the first 2 sentences that I wrote ? edited to add; hyper, you're not upset that I pointed out the obvious are you ? Both formaldehyde and glucose are the result of photosynthesis. If that is wrong, please provide a reference. Also, if both formaldehyde and glucose are composed of something other than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, again, please post a reference. Sad but true, C6H12O6 is glucose. If not, please provide a reference. And if formaldehyde is not CH2O, a reference for that as well. Because in all of this, about all that needs to happen is for the carbon element to bond with the H2O molecule while releasing and O2 molecule. I hope you are not going to say that photosynthesis does not release O2 type oxygen back into the atmosphere. So could you please show where anything I posted is wrong. Your claiming that I am ignorant is nothing more than a baseless claim. Of course, it is accepted that a carbon element has a double covalent type bond with the 2 oxygen molecules. I think I am allowed to disagree and should be allowed to consider the possibility of a shared field. But I'm not. 1984 Edited June 12, 2015 by jlindgaard -3
imatfaal Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 ! Moderator Note jlindegard You can claim what you like in your own blog - but this is the "speculations" forum not the "wild baseless stab-in-the-dark" forum; as such it has rules and guidelines http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/ http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/40683-pseudoscience-for-the-responsible-rules-of-engagement/ Your misunderstanding of, and incredulity towards modern science is not enough to discharge the burden of proof. Please take a read of the guidelines and see if you can provide some of the information required. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report it if you feel it is unfair.
Sensei Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Why I suspect this is because in photosynthesis and the upper troposphere H2O, CO2, CH2O and O2 are found. In atmosphere, especially in upper level, there is shower of highly accelerated cosmic ray particles. Which are ionizing whatever elements are present in atmosphere, or even transmuting elements to other. Have you heard about Carbon-14, unstable isotope, used to learn age of organic matter? If cosmic ray has enough energy to transmute element, it has thousands more than needed to ionize elements, and make unpredictable chemical reactions. Edited June 12, 2015 by Sensei 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 hypervalent-iodine, Because in all of this, about all that needs to happen is for the carbon element to bond with the H2O molecule while releasing and O2 molecule. Could you explain exactly what it is you mean by this and what you are trying to get to by pointing it out? You are vastly oversimplifying what is in reality, a much more complex process and I wonder if that is where part of your misunderstanding comes from. Of course, it is accepted that a carbon element has a double covalent type bond with the 2 oxygen molecules. I think I am allowed to disagree and should be allowed to consider the possibility of a shared field. But I'm not. 1984 You are welcome to disagree with whatever you want. It doesn't make you right or even very convincing. You have not clearly stated any valid, scientific reason for why you think the current understanding is wrong and what you have said has only demonstrated that you do not know enough of what you are disagreeing with to disagree with it in the first place. So, I have some questions. 1. Can you scientifically explain why you think our current understanding is wrong? 2. Do you have a valid alternative? 3. If so, how do we test your idea and where is your math to show why we should accept it? 4. Have you heard of molecular orbital theory? I'm particularly interested in your answer to the last one.
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 hypervalent, I don't have a need for he said, he said. For what imatfaal posted, I could consider that slander. To think that CO2, H2O, CH2O and C6H12O6 are all a part of photosynthesis is wild assed ? I kind of miss the point the 2 of you are making. Can you show where the photosynthesis process has been demonstrated ? Or how about how gases occur in our upper atmosphere. Hasn't been done so no reason to think it can. Those answers are not in any book. -1
Strange Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 hypervalent, I don't have a need for he said, he said. For what imatfaal posted, I could consider that slander. To think that CO2, H2O, CH2O and C6H12O6 are all a part of photosynthesis is wild assed ? I kind of miss the point the 2 of you are making. Can you show where the photosynthesis process has been demonstrated ? Or how about how gases occur in our upper atmosphere. Hasn't been done so no reason to think it can. Those answers are not in any book. You are the one making claims. So you are the one who needs to provide supporting evidence. You could start by answering the questions from hypervalent-iodine...
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 Strange, This is not a discussion. It's my being trolled. No scientist has yet to demonstrate that CO2 and H2O can be converted into CH2O and O2. And to consider a specific way of trying it is bad ? All I can say is WOW! And for this to be the speculative part of the forum and nothing but hostilities. By the way strange, my proof is that while CO2 emissions need to be lowered according to atmospheric scientists, and the solution is to shut down CO2 emitting power plants. Hmm, what if shutting down power plants would cause blackouts because the demand for energy is not being met ? What then ? And yes, that is where I know I am stupid, it has been politely pointed out to me. After all, if CO2 and water can become CH2O and O2, maybe a commodity could be realized to help off set the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. I know I shouldn't think like that and am working on it.
Strange Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 What evidence do you have that the current understanding of the structure of CO2 is incorrect?
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Strange, This is not a discussion. It's my being trolled. No scientist has yet to demonstrate that CO2 and H2O can be converted into CH2O and O2. And to consider a specific way of trying it is bad ? All I can say is WOW! And for this to be the speculative part of the forum and nothing but hostilities. By the way strange, my proof is that while CO2 emissions need to be lowered according to atmospheric scientists, and the solution is to shut down CO2 emitting power plants. Hmm, what if shutting down power plants would cause blackouts because the demand for energy is not being met ? What then ? And yes, that is where I know I am stupid, it has been politely pointed out to me. After all, if CO2 and water can become CH2O and O2, maybe a commodity could be realized to help off set the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. I know I shouldn't think like that and am working on it. Again, you need to educate yourself. Glucose and other molecules are made from CO2 through a complicated set of biochemical reactions inside the cell. Read this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/making-sugar-from-carbon-dioxide-the-calvin-cycle/ You claim that we have shot down your theory, which may be true. Although by definition, nothing you've given here remotely constitutes what we would call a theory in science. You made a claim at the beginning of this post that you doubt the currently accepted model for the structure of CO2. You have not stated why. You have not told us what you would propose instead. It is hard for anyone to address your issues if you cannot tell us what they actually are. For the record, CO2 emissions and the bonding structure of CO2 are not related. Again I ask you, do you know what molecular orbital theory is? You have since gone on to ramble - rather incoherently - about how no one has shown that CO2 and H2O may be converted into certain biomolecules. That is something that can trivially be shown as false with the very simplest of Google searches. It is not magic and it does happen. Please read the link I have provided. If you still have questions, ask them and be clear about where your contentions lie.
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 hypervalent, You guys haven't shot down my theory. You guys have shown a lack of understanding when it comes to physics. I mean really, attacking someone is not discussing something. It doesn't make you right and yet that is all you can say. I like your last sentence. I have to accept what you say or I am wrong. >> You have since gone on to ramble - rather incoherently - about how no one has shown that CO2 and H2O may be converted into certain biomolecules. That is something that can trivially be shown as false with the very simplest of Google searches. It is not magic and it does happen. << That is a joke, right ? Why aren't they using that to reduce CO2 emissions ? Because it is VERY expensive. In fact, it is so expensive that a plant couldn't produce sugar if it were left to those people. You don't have nothing better to do than troll someone, do you ? I think it's funny though, I really do. Since scientists believe that something similar to electrolysis is used, I have to disprove it before posting, right ? After all, the very first step of photosynthesis is a single photon of light releasing a hydrogen element from the H2O molecule. You are aware of that, right ? And I am an idiot for saying that the carbon element moves from the carbon dioxide molecule to the H2O molecule releasing O2 and having CH2O as a by-product ? How the heck is that rambling ? I simplified the process to where only one element needs to be moved rather than many. And as you have said, it has to be complicated. Could be why scientists have missed it. strange, There is a reason why research is done. And as I mentioned to hypervalent, have to prove it first ? And with research, parameters are usually considered before testing. It's one of those predictive things. You know, like when the test is done, certain things should be observed. That's pretty much normal. Not hearing that in here though. By the way, have to wonder how people who post anonymously are credible. And as for imatfaal, a grad law student ? I guess he would know physics and engineering. Of course, in his one post to me, he did present a legal argument for censoring me in some way. And I guess you guys missed something very basic. If what I know is right, why would I want to work around people like you ? I wouldn't. I guess it's because you guys have shown that you don't appreciate innovation. If you did, you wouldn't mind discussing it. It does take work. -3
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 hypervalent, You guys haven't shot down my theory. You guys have shown a lack of understanding when it comes to physics. I mean really, attacking someone is not discussing something. It doesn't make you right and yet that is all you can say. I like your last sentence. I have to accept what you say or I am wrong. >> You have since gone on to ramble - rather incoherently - about how no one has shown that CO2 and H2O may be converted into certain biomolecules. That is something that can trivially be shown as false with the very simplest of Google searches. It is not magic and it does happen. << That is a joke, right ? Why aren't they using that to reduce CO2 emissions ? Because it is VERY expensive. In fact, it is so expensive that a plant couldn't produce sugar if it were left to those people. You don't have nothing better to do than troll someone, do you ? I think it's funny though, I really do. Since scientists believe that something similar to electrolysis is used, I have to disprove it before posting, right ? After all, the very first step of photosynthesis is a single photon of light releasing a hydrogen element from the H2O molecule. You are aware of that, right ? And I am an idiot for saying that the carbon element moves from the carbon dioxide molecule to the H2O molecule releasing O2 and having CH2O as a by-product ? How the heck is that rambling ? I simplified the process to where only one element needs to be moved rather than many. And as you have said, it has to be complicated. Could be why scientists have missed it. strange, There is a reason why research is done. And as I mentioned to hypervalent, have to prove it first ? And with research, parameters are usually considered before testing. It's one of those predictive things. You know, like when the test is done, certain things should be observed. That's pretty much normal. Not hearing that in here though. By the way, have to wonder how people who post anonymously are credible. And as for imatfaal, a grad law student ? I guess he would know physics and engineering. Of course, in his one post to me, he did present a legal argument for censoring me in some way. And I guess you guys missed something very basic. If what I know is right, why would I want to work around people like you ? I wouldn't. I guess it's because you guys have shown that you don't appreciate innovation. If you did, you wouldn't mind discussing it. It does take work. Just a thought, but perhaps you could get a friend or family member to read this thread and give you their opinion? I think even someone who favors your perspective will tell you you're misinterpreting the criticism here. Everyone else is focusing on your idea, and you're attacking individuals. And they really aren't shooting your idea down, they're begging you to explain it further, because it's not well supported right now. Ask somebody you trust to read this thread from the beginning. Please.
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 Phi, What they have shown me speaks for itself. There is a reason why experiments are performed. It's because there is a hypothesis. In basic physics, 2 wave lengths of the same frequency can become one wave length of greater amplitude. This is because even wave energy has a gravitational effect. It might even be called a magnetic attraction since magnetism works in the visible light spectrum. And with me, one thing I do have in mind is how the process could be performed in mechanical engineering since reducing CO2 emissions is what I am concerned about. You know, what type of process can work on an industrial scale and be cost effective. It is funny though, for all the apocalyptic movies out there, none have used an asteroid coming between the Earth and the Moon releasing the Moon from Earth's gravitational field. And the same principle applies at the macroscopic level. Kind of why the laws of physics are considered laws. But if people can't consider basic physics, not much to discuss.
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Phi, What they have shown me speaks for itself. Bad choice. Even the best thinkers get perspective from their friends and family. I'm so convinced that you are misinterpreting "what they have shown [you]", that I'm urging you to hear it from people you like, people you trust, people you might listen to. I know you're not afraid to do this, so I don't understand why you won't.
imatfaal Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 ! Moderator Note OK - this is getting silly. jlindegaard - please reconsider your OP and start providing some evidence or at the very least an explanation of how you believe your idea could be tested and which results would show that your ideas are more descriptive of nature than the currently held views. This thread is on CO2 and the fact that you "tend to doubt" the mainstream explanation; concentrate on this and stop posting about other members, bonkers ideas about gravity, and moaning about your treatment. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report it if you feel it is unfair
jlindgaard Posted June 12, 2015 Author Posted June 12, 2015 How about if I just quote Albert Einstein ? He said that space is warped by matter. This means that even a diatomic O2 molecule warps space. It's just what others have posted has excluded physics. Of course physics is different than chemistry. imatfaal, You guys are the ones who got silly. Ask my friends because they will agree with you guys ? They wouldn't be my friends if they agreed with you. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that you guys understand basic physics. Einstein is well respected. What part about gravitational fields do you not understand ? And how do you consider that my getting silly ? I keep being told to accept what you guys say because you agree with each other. That tells me that posting in here is a waste of my time. Unlike you, I don't rush to judgment because I assume I know something. Don't you guys have something better to do that troll people like myself ? p.s., I wasn't given the opportunity to explain why I think the mainstream perception of how a CO2 molecules behaves as being wrong because it is a lame assed idea according to you and one other person. And not sure why you say gravity is bonkers. That's not very scientific minded of you. Besides imatfaal, there is a way to demonstrate it but you guys would definitely be the wrong group of people to be associated with. I'll leave it for another day. It isn't worth it to go through crap like this.
StringJunky Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 ... You guys are the ones who got silly. Ask my friends because they will agree with you guys ? They wouldn't be my friends if they agreed with you. Real friends tell you how it really is, not just what you want to hear.
Phi for All Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I'll leave it for another day. It isn't worth it to go through crap like this. Absolutely. It's not a discussion anymore if anyone involved decides to stop listening.
Strange Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 p.s., I wasn't given the opportunity to explain why I think the mainstream perception of how a CO2 molecules behaves as being wrong Actually, you were repeatedly asked to explain this but refused to do so. <shrug> wevs.
Recommended Posts