John Cuthber Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) @Swansont, Why I labeled this thread Will Be Banned is because I have been told that I will be banned if I say that the carbon element in CO2 separates from the diatomic O2 molecule and forms CH2O when it bonds with a water molecule. And that this is the result of a fluctuating vacuum. Of course, this is something that CAN NOT be tested. Why it is in violation of this forums rules. Swansont, there is one minor detail. When I say a fluctuating vacuum, I do not mean increasing then decreasing the quantity of molecules in a given space but increasing and decreasing the space a set number of molecules occupy. Something about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (transferring angular momentum without a heat type transfer) and pursing an equilibrium. Of course, molecules can absorb heat type energy from the container being used for such an experiment. Would be like molecules absorbing energy from chlorophyll. you don't seem to have understood. You won't be banned for saying that. You will be asked to demonstrate that there is at least some evidence for it. If , rather than providing evidence, you keep onposting the same unsupported assertion, you will probably get banned. As far as I can tell, (and it's difficult because of the way you write things) you mean that something like this happens CO2 for some reason falls apart to C and O2 The C reacts with water to produce HCHO That's unrealistic, but at least it is testable If there were carbon atoms floating round in the atmosphere we would detect their absorption spectrum when we looked at sunlight We don't. So that's it. The hypothesis leads to a testable conclusion; the conclusion is found to be false, so the hypothesis is false. For what it is worth the hypothesis that formaldehyde is a step in the photosynthesis of sugars was first put forward by Baeyer in 1864. It was wrong then too. Edited June 14, 2015 by John Cuthber 1
Phi for All Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 Because: CH2 cannot be found in photosynthesis. Show evidence where it is detected. Plants do not make formaldehyde. If they do, show the evidence. High-energy photons are able to radicalize certain molecules. Evidence has been provided to you to confirm this for yourself. Why are atmospheric scientists concerned? Perhaps of the scale and that the CO2 levels are gradually increasing? A single molecule does not have any pressure, nor can it feel effects of a vacuum. A (partial) vacuum is simply the (partial) absence of molecules as compared to our atmosphere, no magic or special energies involved. Glucose contains more chemical energy than the composing molecules. Glucose was able to be formed by photosynthesis which requires light energy to be driven (yet another case where light can enable reactions to occur). CO2, nor any other molecule will gain mass. Vacuum is, again, not a form of energy, but simply the absence of molecules. Perhaps 6CH2O is glucose on paper and your dreamworld, not in real life. People have plenty of times explained this to you. It's time for you to either stop your incessant trolling or remove the fingers from your ears. jlindgaard, please look at the format of fuzzwood's rebuttal. He doesn't just say you're wrong, he shows you exactly where and why. He gives you evidence you can check to support what he's saying. Now look at what you respond with: fuzzwood, so much of what you said is wrong. Kind of why it's a waste of my time posting in here. You claim he's wrong but don't show how or why. You're waving your hands for emphasis when we're looking for supportive evidence. How many different ways can we say the same thing? Seriously, based on your responses, you have a very heavy emotional filter in between what we're saying and what you perceive we're saying. We show you how something you've said is wrong, and you claim we're calling you retarded. You need to stop being so emotional about this and use your reason. You should be able to rationally figure out that when so many people are asking you the same thing, maybe you should respond to that before you do anything else. 2
Klaynos Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 fuzzwood, so much of what you said is wrong. Kind of why it's a waste of my time posting in here. It's comments like this which don't progress the discussion forward. It looks like you've not spent the time to go over what people have said. I've seen many people ask you questions or to explain your points and you've not. That really is a poor way to have a conversation.
swansont Posted June 14, 2015 Posted June 14, 2015 @Swansont, Why I labeled this thread Will Be Banned is because I have been told that I will be banned if I say that the carbon element in CO2 separates from the diatomic O2 molecule and forms CH2O when it bonds with a water molecule. No, as far as I can tell this is another instance of you taking liberties with the truth. I can't find where anyone has threatened to ban you, and certainly not for making a claim. Where you get into trouble is making a claim and then refusing to back it up. And then re-opening threads to talk about the same topic that you refuse to substantiate. You were warned that this could lead to a suspension. It's your refusal to engage in science that is the problem. Not the specifics of what you say. And that this is the result of a fluctuating vacuum. Of course, this is something that CAN NOT be tested. Why it is in violation of this forums rules. Yeah, well, we're a science site, and that's not science. Swansont, there is one minor detail. When I say a fluctuating vacuum, I do not mean increasing then decreasing the quantity of molecules in a given space but increasing and decreasing the space a set number of molecules occupy. Something about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (transferring angular momentum without a heat type transfer) and pursing an equilibrium. Of course, molecules can absorb heat type energy from the container being used for such an experiment. Would be like molecules absorbing energy from chlorophyll. Don't care. I haven't been paying attention to the details of your arguments, only that you have refused to back them up, or admit your errors when others post a half-dozen links falsifying your claims. @swansont, It is true the government has not been locking my threads. I just find it odd that CH2, CH2O, H2O and CO2 are both found in photosynthesis and in the upper troposphere and yet no one can demonstrate how a plant converts water and carbon dioxide into formaldehyde and oxygen. I find it difficult to accept a theory that has yet to be demonstrated by main stream science such as photons of light does this. If that is all it takes, then why are atmospheric scientists concerned about CO2 emissions for ? Am not sure why it is pseudo science to say that expanding a CO2 molecule causes it to become excited and allows it to absorb more energy, After all, if C6H12O6 did not absorb energy, it could not have the necessary potential to maintain it's bonds and yet have "extra" energy when a glucose molecule is broken down by a biological process in our bodies. Of course, if something like a CO2 molecule gains mass, then since it is matter, it also has gravity and this increases it's effect in the space that it occupies. This would be an opposing force to the vacuum which is trying to expand it. I think any more, not my concern really. And I know I am wrong for saying that if the carbon molecule in CO2 moves to an H2O molecule, then the plant has O2 and CH2O which it does. And 6CH2O is glucose. Maybe one day someone will explain why an H2O molecule needs to be taken apart in the first step of photosynthesis ? You had your chance to discuss such matters, but since you refused to support your claims, that opportunity has run its course. 4
Recommended Posts