Phi for All Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 @All, I have contacted The Sierra Club about this experiment. If it works then it's worthless as phi keeps pointing out. Once again, a simple word search of the thread reveals that I've never pointed out that your experiment is worthless. Not once, let alone "keeps pointing out". All my comments have been about the process you're NOT using to propose an idea and have it taken seriously in a serious science discussion. In the very beginning, questions were raised about your idea, basic physics and chemistry questions that would have shown us your reasoning. Asking questions is how we learn, no? But you don't give answers to the questions, you just keep proposing more things that raise more questions. Think of it like building a bridge to understanding your idea. Our questions, and your answers (if you'd give them), help us trust that the next part of the bridge will hold, that it was built right. We question the basics of your idea, because if those are faulty, it's like using rotten wood on the bridge, and we can't trust that part until we fix it. Does that make sense? If you read up on the scientific method, I think you'll see that nobody is asking you for anything more extraordinary than the claims you're making. You may even find that there is something basic you don't understand that makes it seem all wrong, which is much more likely than everybody but you being wrong, no?
jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 Phi, If the basic principle is not understood, it doesn't matter. Gravity itself has 2 basic principles. The 1st is Newton's gravity where an apple falls to the ground. There is also Einstein's thought on gravity, matter will warp the space around it. That is the 2nd principle of gravity. Not sure but you guys seem to discount Einstein's work on gravity. And simply put, with CO2, it is Einstein's principle. Of course, Newton showed the math where there is gravitational attraction. I guess this means that Einstein describe how space reacts to this. Of course, if I say that the O2 molecule stays diatomic, we have problems at that point. After all, I would be suggesting that valence electrons are not shared between the carbon element and individually with the 2 oxygen molecules. I disagree with that. And I think that is where we will have to disagree. p.s. it might be the warping of space increases the potential of the smaller mass. Not quite covered in Newton's work. His work only describes the relationship as they are as far as mass/density to velocity/orbit. The change in such behavior is when a field is changed which tends to lean in Einstein's direction.
Phi for All Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Phi, If the basic principle is not understood, it doesn't matter. Gravity itself has 2 basic principles. The 1st is Newton's gravity where an apple falls to the ground. There is also Einstein's thought on gravity, matter will warp the space around it. That is the 2nd principle of gravity. Not sure but you guys seem to discount Einstein's work on gravity. And simply put, with CO2, it is Einstein's principle. Of course, Newton showed the math where there is gravitational attraction. I guess this means that Einstein describe how space reacts to this. Of course, if I say that the O2 molecule stays diatomic, we have problems at that point. After all, I would be suggesting that valence electrons are not shared between the carbon element and individually with the 2 oxygen molecules. I disagree with that. And I think that is where we will have to disagree. p.s. it might be the warping of space increases the potential of the smaller mass. Not quite covered in Newton's work. His work only describes the relationship as they are as far as mass/density to velocity/orbit. The change in such behavior is when a field is changed which tends to lean in Einstein's direction. [repeated from earlier post] In the very beginning, questions were raised about your idea, basic physics and chemistry questions that would have shown us your reasoning. Asking questions is how we learn, no? But you don't give answers to the questions, you just keep proposing more things that raise more questions.
jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 Phi, I didn't come to my conclusions in one day. The questions you say I propose are what you are not familiar with. If you check, plants do not produce CO and as far as I know, it is not found to naturally occur around the tropopause. The amount of CO in our atmosphere is miniscule. Why ? CH2 and CH2O are readily found to occur naturally. How do they occur ? You know, the process that allows them to be created ? Both CH2 and CH2O are found in the upper troposphere. Where do they come from ? As far as proving things go, Brown did not prove his theory of motion, Einstein did. And as for Eisntein's theory that gravity can affect the path of a photon of light, 2 astronomers took a long trip to prove this about 20 years after he proposed his theory. I think if you were familiar with how Einstein perceived gravity and it's effect on space, then you would have a better understanding of why I think what I do.
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 If you check, plants do not produce CO and as far as I know, it is not found to naturally occur around the tropopause. I checked. There is CO in the tropopause. (from a number of sources- forest fires the photolysis of volatile organics from plants and, of course, from mankind) Which shows that it's time you did more learning. You make a valid point about Einstein. His theory predicted things that were not known to be true at the time. However, when people did check, those predictions were correct. So far you have made no testable predictions. Much of what you have said can be summed up as "everyone except me is wrong" and you have also said things that are plainly wrong.
Strange Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 The 1st is Newton's gravity where an apple falls to the ground. There is also Einstein's thought on gravity, matter will warp the space around it. That is the 2nd principle of gravity. These are not really two principles, but just two different mathematical descriptions of the same thing. After all, Einstein's equations explain how an apple falls to the ground as well. Not sure but you guys seem to discount Einstein's work on gravity. Not sure why you say that. No one discounts the theory of relativity. It is a far more accurate and important theory than Newton's. And simply put, with CO2, it is Einstein's principle. Apart from the fact that all matter is affected by gravity, can you explain how Einstein's theory is relevant to CO2 specifically? Of course, Newton showed the math where there is gravitational attraction. So did Einstein. Of course, if I say that the O2 molecule stays diatomic, we have problems at that point. After all, I would be suggesting that valence electrons are not shared between the carbon element and individually with the 2 oxygen molecules. I disagree with that. And I think that is where we will have to disagree. Valence electrons are shared between atoms to form bonds. So I'm not sure what you disagree with.
jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) @Cuthber, Only 2 people checked and it was over 20 years later. @strange, You really missed it. Einstein's perception which I referred to was not mathematically based as you claim. He referred to the warping as a dish where the out side rim was higher and as you moved closer to the center, it was lower which related to having more effect. As to who ever said CO is found in quantity in our atmosphere, it is a very small quantity. And if CO2 had a double covalent bond, then when ever one of it's oxygen molecules was used to produce something like ozone which requires 3 oxygen molecules, there should be a lot of CO in our upper atmosphere from the processes there and not from a combustion process. Even in photosynthesis where CH2O and 6CH2O occur naturally, no CO is found. But CO2 is altered or modified and yet NO CO. Please explain. In science, all the dots need to line up. And since CO is CO2 minus one oxygen molecule, with a double covalent bond, mathematical probability states that there should be 2 CO molecules for every one O2 molecule. I can't find that. You know, 3 bonds and it's just as likely for a bond between 2 oxygen elements to be broken as it is for a bond between a carbon element and an oxygen element. If not, I know, I'm wrong any way, it's just hot air. Such intelligence. But I guess it's beyond you guys to consider how space is warped by matter. I'm not sure if anyone ever asked Einstein to prove that. Maybe they should have. edited to correct spelling Edited June 13, 2015 by jlindgaard
Fuzzwood Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) O3 forms from the radical reaction between O2 molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone Not a single molecule of CO needed. Edited June 13, 2015 by Fuzzwood
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 @Cuthber, Only 2 people checked and it was over 20 years later. ... Even in photosynthesis where CH2O and 6CH2O occur naturally, no CO is found. But CO2 is altered or modified and yet NO CO. Please explain. Just plain wrong. The effect of gravity on light has been tested many times. This is, perhaps, one of the more impressive tests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG But that's not the point. Einstein's theory led to testable proofs. Your ideas do not. (also, you really need to learn some chemistry) The pathways through which CO2 is converted to sugar by photosynthesis are quite well known. Why not learn about them? Here's a start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-independent_reactions#Calvin_Cycle
jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 fuzzwood, can you post a link where that reaction has been demonstrated ? I think you guys should call me Lindgaard the Retard, then you guys could feel better about yourselves. I think I'll point out a very basic thing you guys have over looked. Since a carbon element shares valence electrons with 2 oxygen elements and the oxygen elements share ionic electrons with each other, what specific attribute prevents an oxygen molecule from sharing an ionic electron with a carbon element ? Kind of why I doubt it's a sharing valence electrons. Lack of CO in our atmosphere, less than 1 ppm. Yet with Einstein's perception of gravity and it having an effect on matter, when a carbon element is close enough to a diatomic oxygen molecule, their effect on the same space creates a bond. This is when the diatomic oxygen molecule constricts it's field because it's spin is slowed and the carbon elements spin increases, viola ! Most likely how it happens. Kind of why whenever you see CO2 being involved in a natural process, the carbon element and not an oxygen molecule is moved. And I know you guys will disagree with this even though you won't be able to show a natural occurrence of CO.
Fuzzwood Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) Have you read the link I supplied? And the oxygen in CO2 DON'T share ANY electrons with each other. The fact that it is written in that fashion is just to make it easier. CO2, in fact, looks like O=C=O. CO on the other hand, can be viewed as ionic with a free electron pair on carbon and another one on oxygen. The oxygen lacks an electron this way, giving it a positive charge, while the carbon in this fashion has a surplus electron, thus giving it a positive charge. CO is still neutral but its composing atoms can be viewed as being ionic. Natural occurence of CO? Whenever a tree has been set on fire by lightning. Edited June 13, 2015 by Fuzzwood
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 I hope Fuzzword doesn't mind if I reply on his behalf Have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Production and you will see that ozone is made from pure oxygen more effectively than from air.Since there's CO2 in air, but not oxygen, the CO2 can't be needed (or even help). Most of what you are saying is nonsense. For example you say "a carbon element" and "the oxygen elements". Since carbon is an element those phrases make no sense. You are saying "an element element" which is silly. Also there's a really good reason that there isn't much CO in the air. It reacts with oxygen (especially in the presence of UV light from the sun).
jlindgaard Posted June 13, 2015 Author Posted June 13, 2015 Not to single out fuzzwood and O3, because we have discussed carbonic acid which is hypothetical. In the tropopause, the atmospheric temperature is about -60° C. It also has more vacuum or less pressure than the upper troposphere has. Sorry that I am not talking chemistry but atmospheric physics. And in this tropopause, we have both CO2 and H2O, that's chemistry. And since carbonic acid is not possible, is it outside the realm of possibility if when CO2 tries to meld with H2O that with the elements C, H2 and O3 that they form another combination instead ? We do have O3 in the lower stratosphere and we also have CH2 in the upper troposphere. I can't think something like this is possible because we have record levels of CO2 exceeding 400 ppm along with more water in our atmosphere and an ozone layer that's recovered faster than both NOAA and NASA expected. It's just too damned convenient.
John Cuthber Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 For heaven's sake learn something about the subject before trying to preach to us. "The long-held belief that carbonic acid could not exist as a pure compound has reportedly been recently disproved by the preparation of the pure substance in both solid and gas form by University of Innsbruck researchers." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid Incidentally, we certainly do not have much CH2 anywhere in the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylene_(compound) it reacts very rapidly with oxygen to give (mainly) this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxirane Are you going to stop posting nonsense and learn some chemistry?
Fuzzwood Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) You don't need friggin CO to make ozone, not water, nor H2, nor CH2 which doesn't even exist like that. There is plenty of oxygen left in the atmospheric sphere you refer to. Also, chemistry, like any other science, doesn't care what you or I think of it. It simply works. Are you a global warming skeptic by any chance? Edited June 13, 2015 by Fuzzwood
swansont Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 ! Moderator Note That's enough. jlindgaard, this is a science discussion site, not your personal soapbox. The expectation is that you support your assertions and not jump from subject to subject. Being wrong isn't against the rules, but not addressing criticism of your assertions is. 3
Recommended Posts