Remember me
▼ Content

Chemistry: Unambiguous Definitions for Rational Discussion

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Chemistry: Unambiguous Definitions for Rational Discussion


Page 1 of 212>
Chemistry: Unambiguous Definitions for Rational Discussion30-12-2024 18:05
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 "Define your terms" is a favorite expression at this website.

Discussion of science is facilitated by common understanding of what the terms are intended to mean.

Challenges to assertions often hinge on interpretation of terms.

For example: "pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night

To know if this assertion is correct, one needs to know what "pH" is.

pH = -log[H+]

"pH" is equal to the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity, with chemical activity reported as Molarity (moles H+ per liter) or Normality (equivalents H+ ion charge per liter)

For an acid such as HCl, hydrochloric acid, Molarity and Normality are the same because one mole of HCl has one equivalent H+ per mole.

For an acid such as H2SO4, sulfuric acid, Molarity is 1/2 Normality, because one mole of H2SO4 has TWO equivalents H+ per mole.

Take a 1.0 N solution of HCl, hydrochloric acid, which is easy to mix in a lab.

That solution has 1.0 moles per liter H+

The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0

The pH of that solution MUST BE zero, IFF pH = -log[H+]

"Do the math" - IBdaMann



However, the great Bible of Falsifiable Theories MIGHT have a more "correct" definition of "pH", by which pH CANNOT be equal to or less than zero.

I wish they would stop keeping their definitions secret.

MANY of the definitions from the Bible of Falsifiable Theories DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the definitions found in chemistry textbooks and dictionaries.

THIS THREAD is where I will try to reconcile the disparity.

Starting with pH

If it is CORRECT that pH = -log[H+], then pH absolutely CAN be less than or equal to zero.

If pH CANNOT be less than or equal to zero, then pH does NOT equal -log[H+]

Should we take a vote on it? No, "science is not consensus"

What IS pH, if it is correct that it cannot be less than or equal to zero?

Maybe it is just my PERSONAL OPINION that pH = -log[H+]?


According to the opinions expressed at this website, there are MANY basic chemistry terms that are "controversial", with radically divergent interpretations of what they mean.

pH, for example. But this is just the FIRST "unambiguous definition" to work on.

IFF pH = -log[H+], it is FALSE that "pH cannot be less than or equal to zero."

As IBdaMann says, "Do the math."
30-12-2024 21:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)		 Stop spamming.
30-12-2024 21:46
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 "Define your terms" is a favorite expression at this website.

Discussion of science is facilitated by common understanding of what the terms are intended to mean.

Challenges to assertions often hinge on interpretation of terms.

For example: "pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night

To know if this assertion is correct, one needs to know what "pH" is.

pH = -log[H+]

"pH" is equal to the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity, with chemical activity reported as Molarity (moles H+ per liter) or Normality (equivalents H+ ion charge per liter)

For an acid such as HCl, hydrochloric acid, Molarity and Normality are the same because one mole of HCl has one equivalent H+ per mole.

For an acid such as H2SO4, sulfuric acid, Molarity is 1/2 Normality, because one mole of H2SO4 has TWO equivalents H+ per mole.

Take a 1.0 N solution of HCl, hydrochloric acid, which is easy to mix in a lab.

That solution has 1.0 moles per liter H+

The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0

The pH of that solution MUST BE zero, IFF pH = -log[H+]

"Do the math" - IBdaMann



However, the great Bible of Falsifiable Theories MIGHT have a more "correct" definition of "pH", by which pH CANNOT be equal to or less than zero.

I wish they would stop keeping their definitions secret.

MANY of the definitions from the Bible of Falsifiable Theories DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the definitions found in chemistry textbooks and dictionaries.

THIS THREAD is where I will try to reconcile the disparity.

Starting with pH

If it is CORRECT that pH = -log[H+], then pH absolutely CAN be less than or equal to zero.

If pH CANNOT be less than or equal to zero, then pH does NOT equal -log[H+]

Should we take a vote on it? No, "science is not consensus"

What IS pH, if it is correct that it cannot be less than or equal to zero?

Maybe it is just my PERSONAL OPINION that pH = -log[H+]?


According to the opinions expressed at this website, there are MANY basic chemistry terms that are "controversial", with radically divergent interpretations of what they mean.

pH, for example. But this is just the FIRST "unambiguous definition" to work on.

IFF pH = -log[H+], it is FALSE that "pH cannot be less than or equal to zero."

As IBdaMann says, "Do the math."


Apparently, in Chemistry Clown College they teach a DIFFERENT definition for what "pH" is.

pH NOT equal to -log[H+]

At Chemistry Clown College they teach the TRUTH about pH.

pH = "Stop spamming"
30-12-2024 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)		 Stop spamming.
30-12-2024 21:58
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Are you really so INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING math and science that you don't understand that the pH of 1.0 N hydrochloric acid equals zero?

Are you so deeply entrenched in your unteachable scientific illiteracy that you continue to stand by your ABSURD assertion

"pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night

aka the CHEMISTRY CLOWN!
30-12-2024 23:57
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 The plan was to begin with an unambiguous definition of "pH".

And then move on to an unambiguous definition of "pH buffering"

"Go and learn what pH is." "Go and learn what buffering is." - ITN

There is "controversy" regarding whether or not "water itself" is "an excellent pH buffer".

But we still aren't out of the woods defining pH.

Two incompatible, mutually exclusive definitions have been offered.

1. pH = -log[H+]

1. pH = something that "cannot be less than or equal to zero."


It is not possible for both statements to be true.

If pH = -log[H+], then it CAN be less than or equal to zero.

If pH CANNOT be less than or equal to zero, then it is NOT possible for an acid solution to be greater than or equal to 1.0 Normal, assuming pH = -log[H+].

So, before we move on to pH BUFFERING, let's see if we can figure out what pH itself is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Define your terms" is a favorite expression at this website.

Discussion of science is facilitated by common understanding of what the terms are intended to mean.

Challenges to assertions often hinge on interpretation of terms.

For example: "pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night

To know if this assertion is correct, one needs to know what "pH" is.

pH = -log[H+]

"pH" is equal to the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity, with chemical activity reported as Molarity (moles H+ per liter) or Normality (equivalents H+ ion charge per liter)

For an acid such as HCl, hydrochloric acid, Molarity and Normality are the same because one mole of HCl has one equivalent H+ per mole.

For an acid such as H2SO4, sulfuric acid, Molarity is 1/2 Normality, because one mole of H2SO4 has TWO equivalents H+ per mole.

Take a 1.0 N solution of HCl, hydrochloric acid, which is easy to mix in a lab.

That solution has 1.0 moles per liter H+

The negative logarithm of 1.0 = 0

The pH of that solution MUST BE zero, IFF pH = -log[H+]

"Do the math" - IBdaMann



However, the great Bible of Falsifiable Theories MIGHT have a more "correct" definition of "pH", by which pH CANNOT be equal to or less than zero.

I wish they would stop keeping their definitions secret.

MANY of the definitions from the Bible of Falsifiable Theories DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the definitions found in chemistry textbooks and dictionaries.

THIS THREAD is where I will try to reconcile the disparity.

Starting with pH

If it is CORRECT that pH = -log[H+], then pH absolutely CAN be less than or equal to zero.

If pH CANNOT be less than or equal to zero, then pH does NOT equal -log[H+]

Should we take a vote on it? No, "science is not consensus"

What IS pH, if it is correct that it cannot be less than or equal to zero?

Maybe it is just my PERSONAL OPINION that pH = -log[H+]?


According to the opinions expressed at this website, there are MANY basic chemistry terms that are "controversial", with radically divergent interpretations of what they mean.

pH, for example. But this is just the FIRST "unambiguous definition" to work on.

IFF pH = -log[H+], it is FALSE that "pH cannot be less than or equal to zero."

As IBdaMann says, "Do the math."


Apparently, in Chemistry Clown College they teach a DIFFERENT definition for what "pH" is.

pH NOT equal to -log[H+]

At Chemistry Clown College they teach the TRUTH about pH.

pH = "Stop spamming"
31-12-2024 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)		 Stop whining. Stop spamming.
31-12-2024 03:29
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining. Stop spamming.


Because you don't know SHIT about chemistry!

And you are on record saying so much STUPID shit and calling it "science".

And you troll every post that attempts to discuss real world science.

And you think everyone else is as STUPID as you are, and might actually believe that you are really some kind of "chemist".

"RQAA" means "I have no idea what the answer is, and I can't defend what I said previously in relation to the subject".

"Unit error" means "I have no idea what units real scientists use to report this"

"Math error" means "I have no idea how such a thing would be calculated"

You should stop pretending to be a "chemist" and stick to your lane of TRUE EXPERTISE.

THERMODYNAMICS!

You know why greenhouse gases aren't really greenhouse gases!
31-12-2024 17:21
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Into the Night often posts "Stop spamming."

AND Into the Night has a secret definition for the term "chemical".

"Fluoride is not a chemical." "Carbonate is not a chemical" "Bicarbonate is not a chemical" and the list of "not a chemical" goes on and on.

Some of Into the Night's posts consist ENTIRELY of repeating the same sentence
10 times that one particular thing "is not a chemical". It MUST be IMPORTANT.

So, before attempting to take on extreme advanced chemistry such as "pH" or "Buffer", maybe we need to figure out what a "chemical" is.

Let's ask Google, or maybe even a textbook or dictionary, the obvious question - "What is a chemical?"

Perhaps Into the Night will finally share HIS unique, personal definition for the term "chemical", to explain WHY, for example, "Fluoride is not a chemical".

Here is a pretty vague one:

"A chemical is any substance that has a defined composition. In other words, a chemical is always made up of the same 'stuff'."

Well, "fluoride" is usually short hand for the fluoride ION, which is certainly a substance that has a defined composition. It is a fluorine atom that has acquired an additional electron to become the negatively charged ion (i.e. anion) called "fluoride"... Fluoride ions are always made up of the same "stuff".

Same holds for "carbonate" and "bicarbonate", which are usually short hand for "carbonate ion" and "bicarbonate ion", which would seem to qualify as "chemicals".

Perhaps what this thread can accomplish is to assist with the translation.

Into the Night is incredibly evasive about providing any kind of definition for the terms that this thread hopes to define. What is pH? What is a buffer? and what the heck is a CHEMICAL?

At least it can be made clear here what the overwhelming majority of SCIENTISTS understand these terms to mean.

Perhaps when referring to "a carbonate" it is NOT a "chemical" because it might be potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, and the list goes on.

But when simply referring to "carbonate", it is almost always short hand for the carbonate ION. CO3(2-) is an anion with two negative charges.

Carbonate ion is certainly "a substance that has a defined composition".

Carbonate ion is certainly "always made of the same 'stuff'"

I am quite comfortable continuing to use the term "carbonate" as short hand for the carbonate ion, as most chemists do. CO3(2-) IS a chemical.

Perhaps we will someday learn the alternative definition that says it is NOT.
31-12-2024 21:35
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3340)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Into the Night often posts "Stop spamming."

Because YOU are often spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
AND Into the Night has a secret definition for the term "chemical".

No he doesn't. You just don't know what a chemical is and refuse to learn.
31-12-2024 21:45
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
gfm7175 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Into the Night often posts "Stop spamming."

Because YOU are often spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
AND Into the Night has a secret definition for the term "chemical".

No he doesn't. You just don't know what a chemical is and refuse to learn.


I'm willing to TRY to learn RIGHT NOW.

Please tell me, gfm7275 what a CHEMICAL is?

ITN REFUSES to.
01-01-2025 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining. Stop spamming.


Because you don't know SHIT about chemistry!

Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And you are on record saying so much STUPID shit and calling it "science".

Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And you troll every post that attempts to discuss real world science.

Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
And you think everyone else is as STUPID as you are, and might actually believe that you are really some kind of "chemist".

Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
"RQAA" means "I have no idea what the answer is, and I can't defend what I said previously in relation to the subject".

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
"Unit error" means "I have no idea what units real scientists use to report this"

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
"Math error" means "I have no idea how such a thing would be calculated"

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You should stop pretending to be a "chemist" and stick to your lane of TRUE EXPERTISE.

You don't have an expertise.
Im a BM wrote:
THERMODYNAMICS!

You deny and discard thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
You know why greenhouse gases aren't really greenhouse gases!

There is no such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-01-2025 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Into the Night often posts "Stop spamming."

Because you keep spamming.
Into the Night wrote:
AND Into the Night has a secret definition for the term "chemical".

I didn't define 'chemical'.
Into the Night wrote:
"Fluoride is not a chemical." "Carbonate is not a chemical" "Bicarbonate is not a chemical" and the list of "not a chemical" goes on and on.

Because you keep thinking these random words are chemicals.
Into the Night wrote:
Some of Into the Night's posts consist ENTIRELY of repeating the same sentence
10 times that one particular thing "is not a chemical". It MUST be IMPORTANT.

It is.
Into the Night wrote:
So, before attempting to take on extreme advanced chemistry such as "pH" or "Buffer", maybe we need to figure out what a "chemical" is.

I'm not going to teach you English.
Into the Night wrote:
Let's ask Google, or maybe even a textbook or dictionary, the obvious question - "What is a chemical?"

False authority fallacies.
Into the Night wrote:
Perhaps Into the Night will finally share HIS unique, personal definition for the term "chemical", to explain WHY, for example, "Fluoride is not a chemical".

No such chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
Here is a pretty vague one:

"A chemical is any substance that has a defined composition. In other words, a chemical is always made up of the same 'stuff'."

Well, "fluoride" is usually short hand for the fluoride ION,

Fluoride is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
which is certainly a substance that has a defined composition.

Not a composition. It is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
It is a fluorine atom that has acquired an additional electron to become the negatively charged ion (i.e. anion) called "fluoride"...

Fluoride is not a chemical. Postfix failure.
Into the Night wrote:
Fluoride ions are always made up of the same "stuff".

Fluoride is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
Same holds for "carbonate" and "bicarbonate", which are usually short hand for "carbonate ion" and "bicarbonate ion", which would seem to qualify as "chemicals".

Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
Perhaps what this thread can accomplish is to assist with the translation.

I am not going to teach English to you.
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night is incredibly evasive about providing any kind of definition for the terms that this thread hopes to define. What is pH? What is a buffer? and what the heck is a CHEMICAL?

I am not going to teach English to you.
Into the Night wrote:
At least it can be made clear here what the overwhelming majority of SCIENTISTS understand these terms to mean.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not buzzwords.
Into the Night wrote:
Perhaps when referring to "a carbonate"

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
it is NOT a "chemical" because it might be potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, and the list goes on.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
But when simply referring to "carbonate", it is almost always short hand for the carbonate ION. CO3(2-) is an anion with two negative charges.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
Carbonate ion is certainly "a substance that has a defined composition".

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
Carbonate ion is certainly "always made of the same 'stuff'"

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
I am quite comfortable continuing to use the term "carbonate" as short hand for the carbonate ion,

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
as most chemists do.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Chemistry is not buzzwords.
Into the Night wrote:
CO3(2-) IS a chemical.

Random letters and numbers is not a chemical.
Into the Night wrote:
Perhaps we will someday learn the alternative definition that says it is NOT.

There is no such thing as an 'alternate definition'.

I am not going to teach English to you.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-01-2025 03:58
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
gfm7175 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Into the Night often posts "Stop spamming."

Because YOU are often spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
AND Into the Night has a secret definition for the term "chemical".

No he doesn't. You just don't know what a chemical is and refuse to learn.



Actually, you are correct.

Into the Night does NOT have a secret definition for the term "chemical".

He does not have ANY definition for the term "chemical" other than "RQAA" and "Stop spamming"

Are you genuinely gullible enough to fall for the CHEMISTRY CLOWN act?

Do you think it is even remotely plausible that Into the Night knows more about the actual field of real world science called "chemistry" than I do?

What is YOUR opinion on the importance of identifying carbonate ion as "not a chemical" rather than admit that it is something real that exists and plays a major role in pH buffering?

What IS a "chemical"?

Do YOU know, gfm7175?

Are YOU keeping it secret?

I encourage you to read the post just above this one.

The sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical" is REPEATED SEVEN TIMES.

"Fluoride is not a chemical" REPEATED three times...

Doe that explain ANYTHING about chemistry?

Is that a meaningful reply to ANYTHING?

It takes up most of the post to say what is NOT a chemical. That's as close as it gets to discussing the chemistry.

Still can't get him to tell us, just once, what IS a chemical.
Edited on 01-01-2025 04:03
02-01-2025 04:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)		 You deny chemistry, Robert. You think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords.
You aren't discussing chemistry.

I'm not going to teach you English.
02-01-2025 16:40
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
Into the Night wrote:
You deny chemistry, Robert. You think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords.
You aren't discussing chemistry.

I'm not going to teach you English.


Okay, well I AM going to teach you a little English.

The word "ion".

For example, the hydrogen ION, also commonly referred to by chemists as simply a "proton" (protonation, deprotonation, "donate a proton" etc.)

Into the Night can only say, "Hydrogen is not a proton", over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that hydrogen ION "is not a proton".

Into the Night can only say, "Carbonate is not a chemical", over and over and over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that carbonate ION "is not a chemical".

Is it a deliberate evasive word game?

Does Into the Night not understand what "ion" MEANS?

Or does he simply not SEE the word "ion" when he answers "Is hydrogen ION a proton?" by saying "Hydrogen is not a proton."

Carbonate ion IS a chemical by any actual chemist's definition of "chemical".

When the term "carbonate" is used alone in a sentence by chemists, it is almost ALWAYS a quicker way of saying "carbonate ion", which is a specific CHEMICAL.

To further clarify, if the term "carbonate" follows the name of a cation, such as CALCIUM carbonate, sodium carbonate, or even hydrogen carbonate (carbonic acid), then "carbonate" is part of the name of a specific salt, acid, or base that contains the carbonate ion.

Might as well point that out too, sodium carbonate is ALKALINE, a weak base. Sodium carbonate is orders of magnitude less alkaline that sodium hydroxide.

Bicarbonate buffers against pH change upon addition of BASE, by turning the STRONG BASE sodium hydroxide into the WEAK BASE sodium carbonate.

Chemists sometimes might refer to a generic "carbonate" (a carbonate), but the word wouldn't stand alone as "carbonate" in the sentence.

Go learn English and learn to read.

Into the Night, do you know what the CARBONATE ION is?

Is there some chemistry-related reason to say carbonate ion is NOT a chemical?

If not, why the eff do you say it so many hundreds of times?

Because I am NEVER suggesting that all carbonates are a single chemical.

Learn how chemists communicate, and you will understand that nearly every time you see "proton" or "carbonate" or "fluoride" alone in a sentence, it is almost ALWAYS a reference to hydrogen ION, carbonate ION, or fluoride ION.

Do you think you are making some kind of meaningful argument with the perpetual "not a chemical" shit?

Does the argument become ten times more persuasive by repeating TEN TIMES within the same post, the basically FALSE claim that "carbonate is not a chemical?

And there is no need to say anything MORE? Just deny that carbonate is a chemical, over and over, and you have EXPLAINED something about chemistry?

You cannot teach what you do not know.
Edited on 02-01-2025 17:32
02-01-2025 18:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You deny chemistry, Robert. You think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords.
You aren't discussing chemistry.

I'm not going to teach you English.


Okay, well I AM going to teach you a little English.

You don't know much English.
Im a BM wrote:
The word "ion".

For example, the hydrogen ION, also commonly referred to by chemists as simply a "proton" (protonation, deprotonation, "donate a proton" etc.)

Hydrogen is not a proton.
[b]Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night can only say, "Hydrogen is not a proton", over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that hydrogen ION "is not a proton".

Hydrogen is not a proton.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night can only say, "Carbonate is not a chemical", over and over and over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that carbonate ION "is not a chemical".[/b]

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:[
Is it a deliberate evasive word game?

Inversion fallacy. Buzzword fallacies. Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Does Into the Night not understand what "ion" MEANS?

Yes. Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Or does he simply not SEE the word "ion" when he answers "Is hydrogen ION a proton?" by saying "Hydrogen is not a proton."

Hydrogen is not a proton.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbonate ion IS a chemical by any actual chemist's definition of "chemical".

Carbonate is not a chemical. You don't get to speak for everyone.
Im a BM wrote:
When the term "carbonate" is used alone in a sentence by chemists, it is almost ALWAYS a quicker way of saying "carbonate ion", which is a specific CHEMICAL.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
To further clarify, if the term "carbonate" follows the name of a cation, such as CALCIUM carbonate, sodium carbonate, or even hydrogen carbonate (carbonic acid), then "carbonate" is part of the name of a specific salt, acid, or base that contains the carbonate ion.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Might as well point that out too, sodium carbonate is ALKALINE, a weak base. Sodium carbonate is orders of magnitude less alkaline that sodium hydroxide.

Sodium carbonate is not an alkaline. Sodium hydroxide is not an alkaline. Both are salts.
Im a BM wrote:
Bicarbonate buffers against pH change upon addition of BASE, by turning the STRONG BASE sodium hydroxide into the WEAK BASE sodium carbonate.

Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Chemists sometimes might refer to a generic "carbonate" (a carbonate), but the word wouldn't stand alone as "carbonate" in the sentence.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Go learn English and learn to read.

LIF. Grow up.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, do you know what the CARBONATE ION is?

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Is there some chemistry-related reason to say carbonate ion is NOT a chemical?

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
If not, why the eff do you say it so many hundreds of times?

Because you keep using the same buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Because I am NEVER suggesting that all carbonates are a single chemical.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Learn how chemists communicate, and you will understand that nearly every time you see "proton" or "carbonate" or "fluoride" alone in a sentence, it is almost ALWAYS a reference to hydrogen ION, carbonate ION, or fluoride ION.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Hydrogen is not an ion. Fluoride is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Do you think you are making some kind of meaningful argument with the perpetual "not a chemical" shit?

Yes. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
Does the argument become ten times more persuasive by repeating TEN TIMES within the same post, the basically FALSE claim that "carbonate is not a chemical?

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
And there is no need to say anything MORE? Just deny that carbonate is a chemical, over and over, and you have EXPLAINED something about chemistry?

Carbonate is not a chemical. You aren't talking about chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
You cannot teach what you do not know.

LIF. Grow up.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-01-2025 20:59
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 Definition of terms - IS CARBONATE A CHEMICAL?

Ask good old GOOGLE, I bet HE knows the answer.

Google search terms: is carbonate a chemical?

And GOOGLE (aka God) says:

"Yes, 'carbonate' is considered a chemical, specifically referring to a polyatomic ion with the formula CO3(2-) which is derived from carbonic acid (H2CO3) and is often in compounds with metals like calcium and sodium, forming minerals like calcium carbonate (CaCO3)."



Google's assertions are 100% consistent with everything I learned during extensive training in chemistry at universities.

Google has a much better track record than Into daMann when it comes to having a CORRECT assertion about SCIENCE.

And, like all the other chemists, I will continue to use the term "carbonate" in reference to the CHEMICAL they call the "carbonate ion".
03-01-2025 01:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
Definition of terms - IS CARBONATE A CHEMICAL?

Ask good old GOOGLE, I bet HE knows the answer.

Google search terms: is carbonate a chemical?

And GOOGLE (aka God) says:

"Yes, 'carbonate' is considered a chemical, specifically referring to a polyatomic ion with the formula CO3(2-) which is derived from carbonic acid (H2CO3) and is often in compounds with metals like calcium and sodium, forming minerals like calcium carbonate (CaCO3)."



Google's assertions are 100% consistent with everything I learned during extensive training in chemistry at universities.

Google has a much better track record than Into daMann when it comes to having a CORRECT assertion about SCIENCE.

And, like all the other chemists, I will continue to use the term "carbonate" in reference to the CHEMICAL they call the "carbonate ion".

Carbonate is not a chemical. Science isn't a search engine, university, title, degree, or government agency.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-01-2025 02:17
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Definition of terms - IS CARBONATE A CHEMICAL?

Ask good old GOOGLE, I bet HE knows the answer.

Google search terms: is carbonate a chemical?

And GOOGLE (aka God) says:

"Yes, 'carbonate' is considered a chemical, specifically referring to a polyatomic ion with the formula CO3(2-) which is derived from carbonic acid (H2CO3) and is often in compounds with metals like calcium and sodium, forming minerals like calcium carbonate (CaCO3)."



Google's assertions are 100% consistent with everything I learned during extensive training in chemistry at universities.

Google has a much better track record than Into daMann when it comes to having a CORRECT assertion about SCIENCE.

And, like all the other chemists, I will continue to use the term "carbonate" in reference to the CHEMICAL they call the "carbonate ion".

Carbonate is not a chemical. Science isn't a search engine, university, title, degree, or government agency.


Of course, the addiction to repetition fallacy REQUIRES that "carbonate is not a chemical" be posted. AGAIN!

That should have been more than enough to explain the chemistry basis for the assertion. It is been mentioned a couple of times before, as I recall.

But this time we get the WHOLE story.

Why do chemists know that carbonate is NOT a chemical?

Because "Science isn't a search engine, university, title, degree, or government agency."

Finally the kind of stuff that only a CHEMIST would understand.

Carbonate CANNOT be a chemical because SCIENCE is NOT those things that were mentioned.

I think I finally get it.

What a FANTASTIC chemistry instructor!

Any doubts I might have had about credibility as a "chemist" have been erased.
03-01-2025 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, the addiction to repetition fallacy REQUIRES that "carbonate is not a chemical" be posted. AGAIN!

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else!
Im a BM wrote:
That should have been more than enough to explain the chemistry basis for the assertion. It is been mentioned a couple of times before, as I recall.

But this time we get the WHOLE story.

Why do chemists know that carbonate is NOT a chemical?

Because "Science isn't a search engine, university, title, degree, or government agency."

Finally the kind of stuff that only a CHEMIST would understand.

Carbonate CANNOT be a chemical because SCIENCE is NOT those things that were mentioned.

I think I finally get it.

What a FANTASTIC chemistry instructor!

Any doubts I might have had about credibility as a "chemist" have been erased.

You don't get to quote everyone or declare credibility for everyone. Omniscience fallacies.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-01-2025 03:01
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, the addiction to repetition fallacy REQUIRES that "carbonate is not a chemical" be posted. AGAIN!

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else!
Im a BM wrote:
That should have been more than enough to explain the chemistry basis for the assertion. It is been mentioned a couple of times before, as I recall.

But this time we get the WHOLE story.

Why do chemists know that carbonate is NOT a chemical?

Because "Science isn't a search engine, university, title, degree, or government agency."

Finally the kind of stuff that only a CHEMIST would understand.

Carbonate CANNOT be a chemical because SCIENCE is NOT those things that were mentioned.

I think I finally get it.

What a FANTASTIC chemistry instructor!

Any doubts I might have had about credibility as a "chemist" have been erased.

You don't get to quote everyone or declare credibility for everyone. Omniscience fallacies.


It's a shame that the old gang isn't here any more to join in and chant:

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!


Having made the outrageous assertion that carbonate IS a chemical, I should be subjected to hostile cross examination.

I should be required to provide an "unambiguous definition" for both the terms "carbonate" and "chemical".

This unambiguous definition for the terms being discussed must NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, as chemists apply them.

Where is the OUTRAGE that I am making assertions about "carbonate" being some kind of "chemical" without even defining my terms? At least ONCE.
03-01-2025 22:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
It's a shame that the old gang isn't here any more to join in and chant:

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!


Having made the outrageous assertion that carbonate IS a chemical, I should be subjected to hostile cross examination.

Carbonate is not a chemical. Random phrases. You seem to be losing coherency.
Im a BM wrote:
I should be required to provide an "unambiguous definition" for both the terms "carbonate" and "chemical".

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
Im a BM wrote:
This unambiguous definition for the terms being discussed must NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, as chemists apply them.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
Im a BM wrote:
Where is the OUTRAGE that I am making assertions about "carbonate" being some kind of
chemical" without even defining my terms? At least ONCE.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-01-2025 19:56
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 pH buffering, aluminum chemistry, and sea water pH

Aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3, used to be the only active ingredient in the popular over the counter antacid Rolaids.

stomach acid plus rolaids equals weakly acidic salt plus water

3HCl + Al(OH)3 = AlCl3 + 3H2O

Aluminum ion, Al3+, can neutralize BASE.

Caustic soda + aluminum chloride = rolaids + table salt

3NaOH + AlCl3 = Al(OH)3 + 3NaCl

Aluminum is typically the third or fourth most abundant element found in soil.

So why isn't ALUMINUM BUFFERING being invoked in SEA WATER chemistry?

Basically, the sea isn't ALKALINE or ACIDIC enough for aluminum buffering to work.

The sea is only slightly alkaline, with pH around 8.3

If the sea were "very alkaline", as IBdaMann asserts, then pH buffering with aluminum would be a BIG DEAL.

Aluminate ions, AlO2-, form when there is enough hydroxide around to transform aluminum hydroxides into aluminum ANIONS.

Al(OH)3 + NaOH = NaAlO2 + 2H2O

Sea water pH is nowhere near high enough for aluminate ion to form.

But what if the sea were actually ACIDIC, as IBdaMann says would allow marine life to thrive as never before?

Buffering by the carbonate system becomes a moot point once the pH gets below 7. Neither carbonate ion nor carbonate ion can be present at high enough concentration to do any buffering at pH below 7.

The sea doesn't do it, but in SOIL is is not at all unusual to find pH below 7, and sometimes orders of magnitude more acidic than that.

Aluminum pH buffering in SOIL is what runs the show in acidic soils.

"Exchangeable acidity" in soil is the "pool" of aluminum ions, Al3+, that is adsorbed to cation exchange (CEC) sites.

Why does soil pH only go down to 5 or maybe 4 in extreme cases, no matter how much acid you add?

Because all those added protons get buffered by ALUMINUM.

Hydrogen ions "protonate" the soil aluminum, minimizing pH decline while creating a "pool" of "exchangeable acidity" in the form of aluminum ions adsorbed to cation exchange sites.

You might try to do a "pH adjustment" to your acidic soil, thinking it shouldn't take too much lime (calcium carbonate) just to raise it from pH 5 to pH 7.

But you just add more and more lime, and the pH barely climbs at all.

The exchangeable acidity reacts with the added lime to minimize pH shift.

Al3+ + CaCO3 = Al2(CO3)3

So, aluminum compounds can be effective pH buffers at very HIGH pH, via the aluminate ion, and at relatively LOW pH, as trivalent Al3+ ions forms and hydrogen ions (H+, protons) get neutralize by protonating aluminum.

Sea water pH is too close to neutral for any kind of aluminum buffering to apply.

Indeed, the concentration of ANY form of aluminum in sea water is TINY, despite its abundance in the earth's. Pretty much only those aluminum ions, Al3+, that are held in organometallic complexes by chelating organic acids can stay dissolved at sea water pH.

Because, OBVIOUSLY, I "think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords".

Into the Night wrote:
You deny chemistry, Robert. You think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords.
You aren't discussing chemistry.

I'm not going to teach you English.


Okay, well I AM going to teach you a little English.

The word "ion".

For example, the hydrogen ION, also commonly referred to by chemists as simply a "proton" (protonation, deprotonation, "donate a proton" etc.)

Into the Night can only say, "Hydrogen is not a proton", over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that hydrogen ION "is not a proton".

Into the Night can only say, "Carbonate is not a chemical", over and over and over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that carbonate ION "is not a chemical".

Is it a deliberate evasive word game?

Does Into the Night not understand what "ion" MEANS?

Or does he simply not SEE the word "ion" when he answers "Is hydrogen ION a proton?" by saying "Hydrogen is not a proton."

Carbonate ion IS a chemical by any actual chemist's definition of "chemical".

When the term "carbonate" is used alone in a sentence by chemists, it is almost ALWAYS a quicker way of saying "carbonate ion", which is a specific CHEMICAL.

To further clarify, if the term "carbonate" follows the name of a cation, such as CALCIUM carbonate, sodium carbonate, or even hydrogen carbonate (carbonic acid), then "carbonate" is part of the name of a specific salt, acid, or base that contains the carbonate ion.

Might as well point that out too, sodium carbonate is ALKALINE, a weak base. Sodium carbonate is orders of magnitude less alkaline that sodium hydroxide.

Bicarbonate buffers against pH change upon addition of BASE, by turning the STRONG BASE sodium hydroxide into the WEAK BASE sodium carbonate.

Chemists sometimes might refer to a generic "carbonate" (a carbonate), but the word wouldn't stand alone as "carbonate" in the sentence.

Go learn English and learn to read.

Into the Night, do you know what the CARBONATE ION is?

Is there some chemistry-related reason to say carbonate ion is NOT a chemical?

If not, why the eff do you say it so many hundreds of times?

Because I am NEVER suggesting that all carbonates are a single chemical.

Learn how chemists communicate, and you will understand that nearly every time you see "proton" or "carbonate" or "fluoride" alone in a sentence, it is almost ALWAYS a reference to hydrogen ION, carbonate ION, or fluoride ION.

Do you think you are making some kind of meaningful argument with the perpetual "not a chemical" shit?

Does the argument become ten times more persuasive by repeating TEN TIMES within the same post, the basically FALSE claim that "carbonate is not a chemical?

And there is no need to say anything MORE? Just deny that carbonate is a chemical, over and over, and you have EXPLAINED something about chemistry?

You cannot teach what you do not know.
Edited on 05-01-2025 20:55
05-01-2025 21:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14932)
Im a BM wrote:. But what if the sea were actually ACIDIC, as IBdaMann says would allow marine life to thrive as never before?

Wrong wording. Use "But what if the sea had been slightly acidic over the evolution of sea life?" Not " What would happen if the ocean suddenly changed pH drastically?"

Im a BM wrote: The sea doesn't do it, but in SOIL is is not at all unusual to find pH below 7, and sometimes orders of magnitude more acidic than that.

Math Tip: This is the exponential nature of acidity and basicity. A decrease of one in an acid's pH value represents an order of magnitude increase in the acid's acidity, and an increase of one in a base's pH value represents an order of magnitude increase in the base's basicity.
05-01-2025 22:18
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 The sea is slightly alkaline, with pH around 8.3

The pH of soils varies from place to place, with some soils ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more acidic than sea water.

Even a circumneutral soil with pH near 7 is already ONE order of magnitude more acidic than sea water. Soils with pH near 5, which comprise MILLIONS and MILLIONS of hectares, are THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more acidic than sea water.

Because pH = -log[H+], the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity, as moles or equivalents per liter.

And on the logarithmic scale, 1 pH unit difference is exactly one order of magnitude.

Comparing sea water at pH near 8 to an acid sulfate soil with pH near 5, the difference of 3 pH units represents THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

These soils are three orders of magnitude more acidic than sea water.

Buffering by the carbonate system does not apply in this pH range.

In the pH 5 zone, ALUMINUM is the Big Buffer.


pH buffering, aluminum chemistry, and sea water pH

Aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3, used to be the only active ingredient in the popular over the counter antacid Rolaids.

stomach acid plus rolaids equals weakly acidic salt plus water

3HCl + Al(OH)3 = AlCl3 + 3H2O

Aluminum ion, Al3+, can neutralize BASE.

Caustic soda + aluminum chloride = rolaids + table salt

3NaOH + AlCl3 = Al(OH)3 + 3NaCl

Aluminum is typically the third or fourth most abundant element found in soil.

So why isn't ALUMINUM BUFFERING being invoked in SEA WATER chemistry?

Basically, the sea isn't ALKALINE or ACIDIC enough for aluminum buffering to work.

The sea is only slightly alkaline, with pH around 8.3

If the sea were "very alkaline", as IBdaMann asserts, then pH buffering with aluminum would be a BIG DEAL.

Aluminate ions, AlO2-, form when there is enough hydroxide around to transform aluminum hydroxides into aluminum ANIONS.

Al(OH)3 + NaOH = NaAlO2 + 2H2O

Sea water pH is nowhere near high enough for aluminate ion to form.

But what if the sea were actually ACIDIC, as IBdaMann says would allow marine life to thrive as never before?

Buffering by the carbonate system becomes a moot point once the pH gets below 7. Neither carbonate ion nor carbonate ion can be present at high enough concentration to do any buffering at pH below 7.

The sea doesn't do it, but in SOIL is is not at all unusual to find pH below 7, and sometimes orders of magnitude more acidic than that.

Aluminum pH buffering in SOIL is what runs the show in acidic soils.

"Exchangeable acidity" in soil is the "pool" of aluminum ions, Al3+, that is adsorbed to cation exchange (CEC) sites.

Why does soil pH only go down to 5 or maybe 4 in extreme cases, no matter how much acid you add?

Because all those added protons get buffered by ALUMINUM.

Hydrogen ions "protonate" the soil aluminum, minimizing pH decline while creating a "pool" of "exchangeable acidity" in the form of aluminum ions adsorbed to cation exchange sites.

You might try to do a "pH adjustment" to your acidic soil, thinking it shouldn't take too much lime (calcium carbonate) just to raise it from pH 5 to pH 7.

But you just add more and more lime, and the pH barely climbs at all.

The exchangeable acidity reacts with the added lime to minimize pH shift.

Al3+ + CaCO3 = Al2(CO3)3

So, aluminum compounds can be effective pH buffers at very HIGH pH, via the aluminate ion, and at relatively LOW pH, as trivalent Al3+ ions forms and hydrogen ions (H+, protons) get neutralize by protonating aluminum.

Sea water pH is too close to neutral for any kind of aluminum buffering to apply.

Indeed, the concentration of ANY form of aluminum in sea water is TINY, despite its abundance in the earth's. Pretty much only those aluminum ions, Al3+, that are held in organometallic complexes by chelating organic acids can stay dissolved at sea water pH.

Because, OBVIOUSLY, I "think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords".

Into the Night wrote:
You deny chemistry, Robert. You think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords.
You aren't discussing chemistry.

I'm not going to teach you English.


Okay, well I AM going to teach you a little English.

The word "ion".

For example, the hydrogen ION, also commonly referred to by chemists as simply a "proton" (protonation, deprotonation, "donate a proton" etc.)

Into the Night can only say, "Hydrogen is not a proton", over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that hydrogen ION "is not a proton".

Into the Night can only say, "Carbonate is not a chemical", over and over and over and over, when challenged about his FALSE assertion that carbonate ION "is not a chemical".

Is it a deliberate evasive word game?

Does Into the Night not understand what "ion" MEANS?

Or does he simply not SEE the word "ion" when he answers "Is hydrogen ION a proton?" by saying "Hydrogen is not a proton."

Carbonate ion IS a chemical by any actual chemist's definition of "chemical".

When the term "carbonate" is used alone in a sentence by chemists, it is almost ALWAYS a quicker way of saying "carbonate ion", which is a specific CHEMICAL.

To further clarify, if the term "carbonate" follows the name of a cation, such as CALCIUM carbonate, sodium carbonate, or even hydrogen carbonate (carbonic acid), then "carbonate" is part of the name of a specific salt, acid, or base that contains the carbonate ion.

Might as well point that out too, sodium carbonate is ALKALINE, a weak base. Sodium carbonate is orders of magnitude less alkaline that sodium hydroxide.

Bicarbonate buffers against pH change upon addition of BASE, by turning the STRONG BASE sodium hydroxide into the WEAK BASE sodium carbonate.

Chemists sometimes might refer to a generic "carbonate" (a carbonate), but the word wouldn't stand alone as "carbonate" in the sentence.

Go learn English and learn to read.

Into the Night, do you know what the CARBONATE ION is?

Is there some chemistry-related reason to say carbonate ion is NOT a chemical?

If not, why the eff do you say it so many hundreds of times?

Because I am NEVER suggesting that all carbonates are a single chemical.

Learn how chemists communicate, and you will understand that nearly every time you see "proton" or "carbonate" or "fluoride" alone in a sentence, it is almost ALWAYS a reference to hydrogen ION, carbonate ION, or fluoride ION.

Do you think you are making some kind of meaningful argument with the perpetual "not a chemical" shit?

Does the argument become ten times more persuasive by repeating TEN TIMES within the same post, the basically FALSE claim that "carbonate is not a chemical?

And there is no need to say anything MORE? Just deny that carbonate is a chemical, over and over, and you have EXPLAINED something about chemistry?

You cannot teach what you do not know.
06-01-2025 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
pH buffering, aluminum chemistry, and sea water pH

You don't understand any of it.
Im a BM wrote:
Aluminum hydroxide, Al(OH)3, used to be the only active ingredient in the popular over the counter antacid Rolaids.

WRONG. The primary active ingredient in Rolaids is calcium carbonate.
Magnesium hydroxide is added to act as a stool softener (treating constipation). This chemical acts as a signal to the body to not remove as much water in the large intestine.
Im a BM wrote:
Aluminum is typically the third or fourth most abundant element found in soil.

Aluminum is not found naturally in the Earth. It must be smelted.
Im a BM wrote:
So why isn't ALUMINUM BUFFERING being invoked in SEA WATER chemistry?

Aluminum isn't a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Basically, the sea isn't ALKALINE or ACIDIC enough for aluminum buffering to work.

The sea is only slightly alkaline, with pH around 8.3

Aluminum isn't a buffer. It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
Im a BM wrote:
If the sea were "very alkaline", as IBdaMann asserts, then pH buffering with aluminum would be a BIG DEAL.

The oceans are alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
Aluminate ions, AlO2-, form when there is enough hydroxide around to transform aluminum
hydroxides into aluminum ANIONS.

Aluminum is not aluminum hydroxide.
Im a BM wrote:
But what if the sea were actually ACIDIC, as IBdaMann says would allow marine life to thrive as never before?

The ocean is alkaline.
Im a BM wrote:
Buffering by the carbonate system

There is no such thing as a "carbonate system".
Im a BM wrote:
becomes a moot point once the pH gets below 7. Neither carbonate ion nor carbonate ion can be present at high enough concentration to do any buffering at pH below 7.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The sea doesn't do it, but in SOIL is is not at all unusual to find pH below 7, and sometimes orders of magnitude more acidic than that.

It is not possible to measure the pH of the Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
Aluminum pH buffering in SOIL is what runs the show in acidic soils.

Aluminum is not a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
"Exchangeable acidity" in soil is the "pool" of aluminum ions, Al3+, that is adsorbed to cation exchange (CEC) sites.

Aluminum is not an ion.
Im a BM wrote:
Why does soil pH only go down to 5 or maybe 4 in extreme cases, no matter how much acid you add?

It is not possible to measure the pH of the Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
Because all those added protons get buffered by ALUMINUM.

Aluminum is not a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen ions "protonate" the soil aluminum, minimizing pH decline while creating a "pool" of "exchangeable acidity" in the form of aluminum ions adsorbed to cation exchange sites.

Aluminum does not occur in the soil.
Im a BM wrote:
You might try to do a "pH adjustment" to your acidic soil, thinking it shouldn't take too much lime (calcium carbonate) just to raise it from pH 5 to pH 7.

A small amount of calcium carbonate will raise the pH of any soil.
Im a BM wrote:
But you just add more and more lime, and the pH barely climbs at all.

Yes it does.
Im a BM wrote:
The exchangeable acidity reacts with the added lime to minimize pH shift.

There is no such thing as "exchangeable acidity". Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
So, aluminum compounds

Aluminum is not a compound.
Im a BM wrote:
can be effective pH buffers at very HIGH pH, via the aluminate ion, and at relatively LOW pH, as trivalent Al3+ ions forms and hydrogen ions (H+, protons) get neutralize by protonating aluminum.

Aluminum is not a buffer. Aluminum is not an ion. Aluminum is not hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a proton. Aluminum is not a proton.
Im a BM wrote:
Sea water pH is too close to neutral for any kind of aluminum buffering to apply.

Aluminum is not a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, the concentration of ANY form of aluminum in sea water is TINY, despite its abundance in the earth's. Pretty much only those aluminum ions, Al3+, that are held in organometallic complexes by chelating organic acids can stay dissolved at sea water pH.

Aluminum is not organic. Aluminum is not an ion. Aluminum does not occur in seawater.
Im a BM wrote:
Because, OBVIOUSLY, I "think chemistry is meaningless buzzwords".

This part is correct.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2025 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
The sea is slightly alkaline, with pH around 8.3

It is not possible to measure the pH of the oceans.
Im a BM wrote:
The pH of soils varies from place to place, with some soils ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more acidic than sea water.

It is not possible to measure the pH of the Earth. An alkaline is not an acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Even a circumneutral soil with pH near 7 is already ONE order of magnitude more acidic than sea water. Soils with pH near 5, which comprise MILLIONS and MILLIONS of hectares, are THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more acidic than sea water.

An alkaline is not an acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Because pH = -log[H+], the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity, as moles or equivalents per liter.

Not the definition of pH.
Im a BM wrote:
And on the logarithmic scale, 1 pH unit difference is exactly one order of magnitude.

pH is not a unit. It is a ratio.
Im a BM wrote:
Comparing sea water at pH near 8 to an acid sulfate soil with pH near 5, the difference of 3 pH units represents THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

pH is not a unit. It is a ratio.
Im a BM wrote:
These soils are three orders of magnitude more acidic than sea water.

Alkalines are not an acid.
Im a BM wrote:
Buffering by the carbonate system does not apply in this pH range.

There is no such thing as a "carbonate system".
Im a BM wrote:
In the pH 5 zone, ALUMINUM is the Big Buffer.

Aluminum is not a buffer.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, do you know what the CARBONATE ION is?

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Is there some chemistry-related reason to say carbonate ion is NOT a chemical?

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
If not, why the eff do you say it so many hundreds of times?

You keep using the same buzzword so many hundreds of times.
Im a BM wrote:
Because I am NEVER suggesting that all carbonates are a single chemical.

Carbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Learn how chemists communicate, and you will understand that nearly every time you see "proton" or "carbonate" or "fluoride" alone in a sentence, it is almost ALWAYS a reference to hydrogen ION, carbonate ION, or fluoride ION.

Hydrogen is not a proton. Hydrogen is not an ion. Carbonate is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2025 06:44
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 OXIDANTS or TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTORS

Most of the scientific literature published about biological oxidation and reduction reactions do not refer to oxygen, O2, as an "oxidant", but rather as a "terminal electron acceptor".

While it is quite correct to call oxygen an "oxidant", there is the implication of a direct reaction between an oxygen molecule and the organic carbon atom that get oxidized.

"Terminal electron acceptor" makes clear that this is the molecule ultimately responsible for allowing a carbon atom to lose some of its electrons and have them end up somewhere, even if they didn't get there until intermediate reactions had occurred among other reactants.

This is an important distinction from a direct chemical oxidation, particularly for terminal electron acceptors OTHER than oxygen.

In sulfate reduction, the terminal electron acceptor (sulfur) acquires additional electrons, but not directly off the organic carbon atom getting oxidized.

Nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), and many other oxyanions (phosphate, arsenate, selenate, borate, molybdate...) can all be used as terminal electron acceptors by bacteria under low oxygen conditions.
06-01-2025 14:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14932)
Im a BM wrote: While it is quite correct to call oxygen an "oxidant", there is the implication of a direct reaction between an oxygen molecule and the organic carbon atom that get oxidized.

What about in the cases where the organic carbon is not organic?

Along these lines, to what extent does it cause warmizombies to shit in their pants when they finally realize that petroleum and natural gas are not formed from ancient life forms, and that petroleum and natural gas are not organic and do not require millions of years to form, or even years to form, but mere hours, through normal geologic activity?

Why do warmizombies deny thermodynamics? Whether it's the belief that things rot into higher energy forms, or the belief that a gas can create energy out of nothing, warmizombies really do worship a WACKY religion.

Im a BM wrote: In sulfate reduction, the terminal electron acceptor (sulfur) acquires additional electrons, but not directly off the organic carbon atom getting oxidized.

I'm curious, how is the source of the electron determined?
06-01-2025 18:29
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: While it is quite correct to call oxygen an "oxidant", there is the implication of a direct reaction between an oxygen molecule and the organic carbon atom that get oxidized.

What about in the cases where the organic carbon is not organic?

Along these lines, to what extent does it cause warmizombies to shit in their pants when they finally realize that petroleum and natural gas are not formed from ancient life forms, and that petroleum and natural gas are not organic and do not require millions of years to form, or even years to form, but mere hours, through normal geologic activity?

Why do warmizombies deny thermodynamics? Whether it's the belief that things rot into higher energy forms, or the belief that a gas can create energy out of nothing, warmizombies really do worship a WACKY religion.

Im a BM wrote: In sulfate reduction, the terminal electron acceptor (sulfur) acquires additional electrons, but not directly off the organic carbon atom getting oxidized.

I'm curious, how is the source of the electron determined?


I get the impression that you actually expect someone to take you SERIOUSLY.

I can't say with certainty that you "worship a WACKY religion".

I CAN say with certainty that you NEVER studied chemistry.

If you are so "curious" about "how is the source of the electron determined?" you could begin with the most remedial, basic, introductory chemistry textbook.

You would have to actually READ it.

You won't be able to argue with the argue and demand definitions for terms, so you might also have to learn how to look up definitions.

It isn't difficult, but you've been posting for more than nine years now.

If you had the APTITUDE to make sense of this "science" stuff, you would have already done so many years ago.

So, Into the Night says that "amphibian" is also a VERB.

Did you ever figure out the scientists in the real world have a classification system for animal species?

Within that classification system, there isn't any "gray" area or "controversy" about what "amphibian" means.

To be an amphibian, the creature has to be a VERTEBRATE.

There are plenty of crabs and other critters with a morphologically distinct juvenile stage that acquires oxygen from water, maturing into an morphologically distinct adult stage that acquires oxygen from air. They are not amphibians, but they might qualify for the more recently evolved term "amphibious"? Not really. The juveniles would die if they get out of the water and the adults would die if they fell into the water. Indeed, those crabs on Christmas Island have to be very careful when they go back to the sea to drop their eggs in the water. If they fall in they will drown to death. Amphibians?

Alligators, which are classified as "reptiles" in the same system that classifies frogs as "amphibians" must breath air their entire lives, and the juvenile alligator body is basically the same morphology as the adult alligator body.

Petroleum forms from "mere hours" of "normal geologic activity"?

You are, in fact, a SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON.

That is not unforgiveable.

But you are also a VERY UGLY TROLL. Perhaps the most disgusting troll I've ever encountered. And the fake scientist act is tiresome. Forgive me for not actually reading most of what you post anymore. Nobody else does either as far as I can tell.

You have been banned from multiple discussion sites, according to your own admission. At least HERE you get all the respect you have earned.
06-01-2025 19:07
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(6002)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: While it is quite correct to call oxygen an "oxidant", there is the implication of a direct reaction between an oxygen molecule and the organic carbon atom that get oxidized.

What about in the cases where the organic carbon is not organic?

Along these lines, to what extent does it cause warmizombies to shit in their pants when they finally realize that petroleum and natural gas are not formed from ancient life forms, and that petroleum and natural gas are not organic and do not require millions of years to form, or even years to form, but mere hours, through normal geologic activity?

Why do warmizombies deny thermodynamics? Whether it's the belief that things rot into higher energy forms, or the belief that a gas can create energy out of nothing, warmizombies really do worship a WACKY religion.

Im a BM wrote: In sulfate reduction, the terminal electron acceptor (sulfur) acquires additional electrons, but not directly off the organic carbon atom getting oxidized.

I'm curious, how is the source of the electron determined?


I get the impression that you actually expect someone to take you SERIOUSLY.

I can't say with certainty that you "worship a WACKY religion".

I CAN say with certainty that you NEVER studied chemistry.

If you are so "curious" about "how is the source of the electron determined?" you could begin with the most remedial, basic, introductory chemistry textbook.

You would have to actually READ it.

You won't be able to argue with the argue and demand definitions for terms, so you might also have to learn how to look up definitions.

It isn't difficult, but you've been posting for more than nine years now.

If you had the APTITUDE to make sense of this "science" stuff, you would have already done so many years ago.

So, Into the Night says that "amphibian" is also a VERB.

Did you ever figure out the scientists in the real world have a classification system for animal species?

Within that classification system, there isn't any "gray" area or "controversy" about what "amphibian" means.

To be an amphibian, the creature has to be a VERTEBRATE.

There are plenty of crabs and other critters with a morphologically distinct juvenile stage that acquires oxygen from water, maturing into an morphologically distinct adult stage that acquires oxygen from air. They are not amphibians, but they might qualify for the more recently evolved term "amphibious"? Not really. The juveniles would die if they get out of the water and the adults would die if they fell into the water. Indeed, those crabs on Christmas Island have to be very careful when they go back to the sea to drop their eggs in the water. If they fall in they will drown to death. Amphibians?

Alligators, which are classified as "reptiles" in the same system that classifies frogs as "amphibians" must breath air their entire lives, and the juvenile alligator body is basically the same morphology as the adult alligator body.

Petroleum forms from "mere hours" of "normal geologic activity"?

You are, in fact, a SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON.

That is not unforgiveable.

But you are also a VERY UGLY TROLL. Perhaps the most disgusting troll I've ever encountered. And the fake scientist act is tiresome. Forgive me for not actually reading most of what you post anymore. Nobody else does either as far as I can tell.

You have been banned from multiple discussion sites, according to your own admission. At least HERE you get all the respect you have earned.


No one knows why electrons, neutrons and protons do what they do, all we can actually achieve is to observe and report

IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
06-01-2025 19:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
OXIDANTS or TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTORS

Most of the scientific literature published about biological oxidation and reduction reactions do not refer to oxygen, O2, as an "oxidant", but rather as a "terminal electron acceptor".

Science isn't 'literature'. It is not a book, paper, web site, pamphlet, or search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
While it is quite correct to call oxygen an "oxidant", there is the implication of a direct reaction between an oxygen molecule and the organic carbon atom that get oxidized.

Oxygen is the only oxidant. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
"Terminal electron acceptor" makes clear that this is the molecule ultimately responsible for allowing a carbon atom to lose some of its electrons and have them end up somewhere, even if they didn't get there until intermediate reactions had occurred among other reactants.

Random words ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
This is an important distinction from a direct chemical oxidation, particularly for terminal electron acceptors OTHER than oxygen.

Oxygen is the only oxidant.
Im a BM wrote:
In sulfate reduction, the terminal electron acceptor (sulfur) acquires additional electrons, but not directly off the organic carbon atom getting oxidized.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfur is not 'sulfate'. You can't reduce 'sulfate'. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Nitrate, sulfate, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), and many other oxyanions (phosphate, arsenate, selenate, borate, molybdate...) can all be used as terminal electron acceptors by bacteria under low oxygen conditions.

Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Iron is not oxygen. Manganese is not oxygen. Phosphate is not a chemical. Arsenate is not a chemical. Selenate is not a chemical. Borate is not a chemical. Molybdate is not a chemical.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2025 19:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
I get the impression that you actually expect someone to take you SERIOUSLY.

I can't say with certainty that you "worship a WACKY religion".

I CAN say with certainty that you NEVER studied chemistry.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
If you are so "curious" about "how is the source of the electron determined?" you could begin with the most remedial, basic, introductory chemistry textbook.

Chemistry is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
You would have to actually READ it.

Chemistry is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
You won't be able to argue with the argue and demand definitions for terms, so you might also have to learn how to look up definitions.

'Look up definitions'?????
Im a BM wrote:
It isn't difficult, but you've been posting for more than nine years now.

Irrelevance fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
If you had the APTITUDE to make sense of this "science" stuff, you would have already done so many years ago.

And he did.
Im a BM wrote:
So, Into the Night says that "amphibian" is also a VERB.

It certainly can be.
Im a BM wrote:
Did you ever figure out the scientists in the real world have a classification system for animal species?

You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert. Science is not a classification system.
Im a BM wrote:
Within that classification system, there isn't any "gray" area or "controversy" about what "amphibian" means.

Science is not a classification system. Science redefines no word. You obviously don't know what 'amphibian' means. Go learn English.
Im a BM wrote:
To be an amphibian, the creature has to be a VERTEBRATE.

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
There are plenty of crabs and other critters with a morphologically distinct juvenile stage that acquires oxygen from water, maturing into an morphologically distinct adult stage that acquires oxygen from air. They are not amphibians, but they might qualify for the more recently evolved term "amphibious"?

Word games won't work, Robert. Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Not really. The juveniles would die if they get out of the water and the adults would die if they fell into the water.

Adult crabs live quite happily in the water.
Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, those crabs on Christmas Island have to be very careful when they go back to the sea to drop their eggs in the water. If they fall in they will drown to death. Amphibians?

Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Alligators, which are classified as "reptiles" in the same system that classifies frogs as "amphibians" must breath air their entire lives, and the juvenile alligator body is basically the same morphology as the adult alligator body.

An egg is not an adult alligator, moron.
Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum forms from "mere hours" of "normal geologic activity"?

Yup. Indeed, it is continuous. You might say it's mere seconds.
Im a BM wrote:
You are, in fact, a SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
That is not unforgiveable.

No one is asking for your forgiveness, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
But you are also a VERY UGLY TROLL. Perhaps the most disgusting troll I've ever encountered.

Random words ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
And the fake scientist act is tiresome.

There is no such thing as a fake scientist. A person that denies science as you do is not a scientist.
Im a BM wrote:
Forgive me for not actually reading most of what you post anymore. Nobody else does either as far as I can tell.

Bulverism fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You have been banned from multiple discussion sites, according to your own admission.

So?
Im a BM wrote:
At least HERE you get all the respect you have earned.

That he does. He does elsewhere as well. Of course, he gets no respect from warmazombies like you. He doesn't need it or want it.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 06-01-2025 19:37
06-01-2025 20:03
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 "Crabs are amphibians" - Into the Night

Many crab species are not even AMPHIBIOUS. Deep water crab species NEVER come out of the water for any part of their life or life cycle.

Scientists actually have a classification system in which the word "amphibian" has a pretty unambiguous definition.

Crabs are not amphibians, but rather CRUSTACEANS in the classification system.

Just as amphibians are in the broader category of VERTEBRATE chordates, crustaceans are in the broader category of ARTHROPODS.

SOME crab species meet some of the criteria for "amphibian", with a water breathing juvenile stage morphologically distinct from an air breathing adult stage. But it can't make them into vertebrates, so they can't be amphibians.

GO AND LEARN SOME SCIENCE, MORON!

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I get the impression that you actually expect someone to take you SERIOUSLY.

I can't say with certainty that you "worship a WACKY religion".

I CAN say with certainty that you NEVER studied chemistry.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
If you are so "curious" about "how is the source of the electron determined?" you could begin with the most remedial, basic, introductory chemistry textbook.

Chemistry is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
You would have to actually READ it.

Chemistry is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
You won't be able to argue with the argue and demand definitions for terms, so you might also have to learn how to look up definitions.

'Look up definitions'?????
Im a BM wrote:
It isn't difficult, but you've been posting for more than nine years now.

Irrelevance fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
If you had the APTITUDE to make sense of this "science" stuff, you would have already done so many years ago.

And he did.
Im a BM wrote:
So, Into the Night says that "amphibian" is also a VERB.

It certainly can be.
Im a BM wrote:
Did you ever figure out the scientists in the real world have a classification system for animal species?

You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert. Science is not a classification system.
Im a BM wrote:
Within that classification system, there isn't any "gray" area or "controversy" about what "amphibian" means.

Science is not a classification system. Science redefines no word. You obviously don't know what 'amphibian' means. Go learn English.
Im a BM wrote:
To be an amphibian, the creature has to be a VERTEBRATE.

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
There are plenty of crabs and other critters with a morphologically distinct juvenile stage that acquires oxygen from water, maturing into an morphologically distinct adult stage that acquires oxygen from air. They are not amphibians, but they might qualify for the more recently evolved term "amphibious"?

Word games won't work, Robert. Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Not really. The juveniles would die if they get out of the water and the adults would die if they fell into the water.

Adult crabs live quite happily in the water.
Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, those crabs on Christmas Island have to be very careful when they go back to the sea to drop their eggs in the water. If they fall in they will drown to death. Amphibians?

Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Alligators, which are classified as "reptiles" in the same system that classifies frogs as "amphibians" must breath air their entire lives, and the juvenile alligator body is basically the same morphology as the adult alligator body.

An egg is not an adult alligator, moron.
Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum forms from "mere hours" of "normal geologic activity"?

Yup. Indeed, it is continuous. You might say it's mere seconds.
Im a BM wrote:
You are, in fact, a SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
That is not unforgiveable.

No one is asking for your forgiveness, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
But you are also a VERY UGLY TROLL. Perhaps the most disgusting troll I've ever encountered.

Random words ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
And the fake scientist act is tiresome.

There is no such thing as a fake scientist. A person that denies science as you do is not a scientist.
Im a BM wrote:
Forgive me for not actually reading most of what you post anymore. Nobody else does either as far as I can tell.

Bulverism fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You have been banned from multiple discussion sites, according to your own admission.

So?
Im a BM wrote:
At least HERE you get all the respect you have earned.

That he does. He does elsewhere as well. Of course, he gets no respect from warmazombies like you. He doesn't need it or want it.
06-01-2025 22:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)
Im a BM wrote:
"Crabs are amphibians" - Into the Night

Many crab species are not even AMPHIBIOUS.

Crabs are amphibious.
Im a BM wrote:
Deep water crab species NEVER come out of the water for any part of their life or life cycle.

Sure they do. I can go and pick 'em up right out of the mud at low tide. They're good eatin'. Just stay away from the sharp end!
Im a BM wrote:
Scientists actually have a classification system in which the word "amphibian" has a pretty unambiguous definition.

Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
Im a BM wrote:
Crabs are not amphibians, but rather CRUSTACEANS in the classification system.

Crabs are both amphibians and crustaceans.
Im a BM wrote:
Just as amphibians are in the broader category of VERTEBRATE chordates, crustaceans are in the broader category of ARTHROPODS.

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME crab species meet some of the criteria for "amphibian", with a water breathing juvenile stage morphologically distinct from an air breathing adult stage. But it can't make them into vertebrates, so they can't be amphibians.

Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
GO AND LEARN SOME SCIENCE, MORON!

You are not discussing science, moron. You deny and discard it. You are also illiterate. Go learn English.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-01-2025 23:32
Im a BM
★★★★☆
(1622)		 "Crabs are amphibians" - Into the Night

Many crab species are not even AMPHIBIOUS. Deep water crab species NEVER come out of the water for any part of their life or life cycle. When they get caught in the traps and hauled up to the boat, the crabbers have enough sense to keep them in well oxygenated sea water. Otherwise they die, being amphibians and all.

Scientists actually have a classification system in which the word "amphibian" has a pretty unambiguous definition.

Crabs are not amphibians, but rather CRUSTACEANS in the classification system.

Just as amphibians are in the broader category of VERTEBRATE chordates, crustaceans are in the broader category of ARTHROPODS.

SOME crab species meet some of the criteria for "amphibian", with a water breathing juvenile stage morphologically distinct from an air breathing adult stage. But it can't make them into vertebrates, so they can't be amphibians.

GO AND LEARN SOME SCIENCE, MORON!

Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I get the impression that you actually expect someone to take you SERIOUSLY.

I can't say with certainty that you "worship a WACKY religion".

I CAN say with certainty that you NEVER studied chemistry.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
If you are so "curious" about "how is the source of the electron determined?" you could begin with the most remedial, basic, introductory chemistry textbook.

Chemistry is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
You would have to actually READ it.

Chemistry is not a book.
Im a BM wrote:
You won't be able to argue with the argue and demand definitions for terms, so you might also have to learn how to look up definitions.

'Look up definitions'?????
Im a BM wrote:
It isn't difficult, but you've been posting for more than nine years now.

Irrelevance fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
If you had the APTITUDE to make sense of this "science" stuff, you would have already done so many years ago.

And he did.
Im a BM wrote:
So, Into the Night says that "amphibian" is also a VERB.

It certainly can be.
Im a BM wrote:
Did you ever figure out the scientists in the real world have a classification system for animal species?

You don't get to speak for everyone, Robert. Science is not a classification system.
Im a BM wrote:
Within that classification system, there isn't any "gray" area or "controversy" about what "amphibian" means.

Science is not a classification system. Science redefines no word. You obviously don't know what 'amphibian' means. Go learn English.
Im a BM wrote:
To be an amphibian, the creature has to be a VERTEBRATE.

Redefinition fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
There are plenty of crabs and other critters with a morphologically distinct juvenile stage that acquires oxygen from water, maturing into an morphologically distinct adult stage that acquires oxygen from air. They are not amphibians, but they might qualify for the more recently evolved term "amphibious"?

Word games won't work, Robert. Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Not really. The juveniles would die if they get out of the water and the adults would die if they fell into the water.

Adult crabs live quite happily in the water.
Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, those crabs on Christmas Island have to be very careful when they go back to the sea to drop their eggs in the water. If they fall in they will drown to death. Amphibians?

Crabs are amphibians.
Im a BM wrote:
Alligators, which are classified as "reptiles" in the same system that classifies frogs as "amphibians" must breath air their entire lives, and the juvenile alligator body is basically the same morphology as the adult alligator body.

An egg is not an adult alligator, moron.
Im a BM wrote:
Petroleum forms from "mere hours" of "normal geologic activity"?

Yup. Indeed, it is continuous. You might say it's mere seconds.
Im a BM wrote:
You are, in fact, a SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE MORON.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
That is not unforgiveable.

No one is asking for your forgiveness, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
But you are also a VERY UGLY TROLL. Perhaps the most disgusting troll I've ever encountered.

Random words ignored.
Im a BM wrote:
And the fake scientist act is tiresome.

There is no such thing as a fake scientist. A person that denies science as you do is not a scientist.
Im a BM wrote:
Forgive me for not actually reading most of what you post anymore. Nobody else does either as far as I can tell.

Bulverism fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
You have been banned from multiple discussion sites, according to your own admission.

So?
Im a BM wrote:
At least HERE you get all the respect you have earned.

That he does. He does elsewhere as well. Of course, he gets no respect from warmazombies like you. He doesn't need it or want it.
07-01-2025 00:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22820)		 Stop spamming.
07-01-2025 09:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14932)
Im a BM wrote:If you are so "curious" about "how is the source of the electron determined?" you could begin with the most remedial, basic, introductory chemistry textbook.

So, you don't know the answer. It seems clear to me that you don't understand my question. I'm guessing that you have reading comprehension issues, which you will confirm below.

Im a BM wrote:Did you ever figure out the scientists in the real world have a classification system for animal species?

That's called a "taxonomy."

Did you ever figure out that there exists an English language? You will eventually, I'm sure of it. Swan, however, isn't having so much luck, though.

Im a BM wrote: Within that [context], there isn't any "gray" area or "controversy" about what "amphibian" means.

Correct, and when the context is the English language, the biological taxonomy does not apply. I don't expect you to be able to grasp all of this in one sitting.

Im a BM wrote: To be an amphibian, the creature has to be a VERTEBRATE.

Incorrect. You'll find that to be an amphibian, a creature has to be amphibious. It's how the language works. You see, I'm not referring to any biological taxonomy. I'm speaking within the context of English. You should try picking it up as an additional language.

"Amphibian" and "Amphibious" are synonyms and are adjectives. "Amphibian" is also a noun, referring to an amphibian/amphibious creature or thing. If you are looking at a wide array of boats, you can point to the amphibious landing craft and say that that boat is an amphibian ... and guess what, it's not a vertebrate.

Pro Tip: if you wish to speak within the context of a biology taxonomy, you must first specify such, otherwise the default context is the English language, in which "amphibian" carries a different meaning. Actually, it is better (and more specific) to say that the biology taxonomy overloads the term "amphibian" which existed first in the English language before being overloaded by an academic's very poor word choice.

Im a BM wrote: Petroleum forms from "mere hours" of "normal geologic activity"?

If you were actually a chemist, you would understand that the same chemical processes under the same conditions occur identically, and do not somehow occur differently in different locations.

When the Fischer-Tropsh synthesis/process creates hydrocarbons in hours in a lab that simulates conditions in the crust and mantle, you have a lot of explaining to do if you are going to claim that the hydrocarbons somehow know to step it up in the lab because people are watching and their time is valuable.

Im a BM wrote: But you are also a VERY UGLY TROLL. Perhaps the most disgusting troll I've ever encountered.

Wait until you see me pick my nose and clip my toe nails, but I don't fling my poo ... I leave that to Swan.

Im a BM wrote: And the fake scientist act is tiresome.

I appreciate you finally acknowledging this. Admitting the problem is half the cure.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Im a BM wrote: Forgive me for not actually reading most of what you post anymore.

You are forgiven. I never really presumed that you would be able to read it all anyway.
07-01-2025 13:40
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(6002)
Into the Night wrote:
Stop spamming.


Do you talk to yourself often

IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Chemistry: Unambiguous Definitions for Rational Discussion:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics8209-12-2023 00:36
Science and Atmospheric Chemistry625-11-2023 20:55
Atmospheric Chemistry701-11-2023 21:32
climate discussion nexus104-02-2021 20:01
Definitions required to address discussions in this forum.2728-08-2019 06:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact