| 05-01-2025 22:09 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14961) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into daMann cannot offer ANY definition for "chemical", let alone an "unambiguous definition".
If Into the Night knew how to read, he would realize that the question being evaded here was directed to IBdaMann.
If you had only known how to read, you would have realized that the question had been answered many times in many ways. Here are but two examples:
IBdaMann wrote:The words "a chemical" is chemistry parlance for a specific instance of matter, i.e. an element of implementation. You cannot use a category, i.e. an element of definition, defined or otherwise, as an instance of matter.
IBdaMann wrote:A chemical is a specific instance of matter, not a category or class.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. |
| 05-01-2025 22:24 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons
In the post directly below this, cow gas is discussed in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts.
However, for more background gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies.
The myth of the fire breathing dragon.
Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING.
However, this just doesn't happen much. We've had a lot of cows around for a long time, and if their belches were flaming somewhere... Somebody would have caught it on camera by now.
The origin of the fire dragon myth may yet have been a belching cow, but it would have taken more than just methane to make it happen.
And it theoretically very plausible that this could have happened by having the explosively flammable gas PHOSPHINE present along with all the methane in the cow belch.
Start with the methane.
Cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions where a variety of different microorganisms engage in a feeding frenzy.
Some of those microorganisms produce hydrogen gas.
That hydrogen gas is then used by methanogenic bacteria to make methane.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane.
These bacteria are among the oldest line of living organisms on earth.
Fire breathing dragon?
If a cow were to inadvertently eat something exceptionally rich in phosphate, with right kind of anaerobic bacteria present (phosphate reducers), phosphine gas could be produced in the cow guts.
Phosphate, P(V) PO4(3-) gets reduced to phosphite, P(III) PO3(3-)
Phosphite can be further reduced to phosphine
PO3(3-) P(III) becomes H3P P(zero)
Phosphine, H3P, is extremely flammable and can spontaneously ignite upon contact with 21% oxygen atmosphere.
With some phosphine, H3P, to set off the methane, CH4, in the cow's belch...
There is a very real possibility that some cow somewhere may have provided the sight that inspired the myth.
And now, there is a very real possibility that applied microbiology will tip the scales of microbiological ecology in cow guts, so that methanogenic bacteria don't make so much methane out of hydrogen. |
| 05-01-2025 22:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
| 06-01-2025 00:19 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons
In the post directly below this, cow gas is discussed in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts.
However, for more background gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies.
The myth of the fire breathing dragon.
Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING.
Stop setting cows on fire.
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 00:25 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
Still infatuated with cow farts, I see!
Im a BM wrote:
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
There is no theory of science about cow belches or farts.
Im a BM wrote:
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
Everything absorbs infrared light. Meh.
Im a BM wrote:
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Im a BM wrote:
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU ignoring the laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the Earth's cow farts or belches.
Im a BM wrote:
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
30 times zero is still zero.
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 18:59 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Yes, when Into the Night trolls a post, he does more than just address the issue discussed in that post.
He provide a complete SCIENCE LESSON that anyone anywhere can now read to learn more about the "science" related to this controversial "climate" stuff.
A complete and thorough explanation.
Best of all, he DEFINES HIS TERMS every time!
But he STILL can't figure out which end of the cow that gas comes out of.
Gosh, will I find Into the Night's picture there under the definition of "scientifically illiterate moron?" in the DICTIONARY?
I should ask IBdaMann. He knows all about whose picture is shown when you look up definitions for terms in the dictionary. Like "gullible".
But even most scientifically illiterate morons aren't gullible enough to REFUSE TO BELIEVE that petroleum formed from organic carbon contained in organisms that died hundreds of millions of years ago.
But it's not such a leap.
Once you REFUSE TO BELIEVE in sea level rise, global warming, coral reef damage, or all that other evidence from the PRESENT real world..
It is even EASIER to come up with an ABSURD denial of what happened in the past.
ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIANS! LONG LIVE CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM!
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:S.
Still infatuated with cow farts, I see!
Im a BM wrote:.
There is no theory of science about cow belches or farts.
Im a BM wrote:.
Everything absorbs infrared light. Meh.
Im a BM wrote:.
You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Im a BM wrote:.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU ignoring the laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:.
Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the Earth's cow farts or belches.
Im a BM wrote:.
30 times zero is still zero. |
| 06-01-2025 23:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O
and since it is ENDOthermic.
H2 + CO2 + (?) calories or joules per mole, to make CH4 and H2O
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Of course they are all LYING.
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
The post directly a few posts above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.
Edited on 06-01-2025 23:27 |
| 07-01-2025 00:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
Yes, when Into the Night trolls a post, he does more than just address the issue discussed in that post.
He provide a complete SCIENCE LESSON that anyone anywhere can now read to learn more about the "science" related to this controversial "climate" stuff.
Climate is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
A complete and thorough explanation.
Best of all, he DEFINES HIS TERMS every time!
I have defined every term I use.
Im a BM wrote:
But he STILL can't figure out which end of the cow that gas comes out of.
Still infatuated with cow farts, eh?
Im a BM wrote:
Gosh, will I find Into the Night's picture there under the definition of "scientifically illiterate moron?" in the DICTIONARY?
Dictionaries don't define any word or phrase. It is YOU that denies theories of science. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Im a BM wrote:
I should ask IBdaMann. He knows all about whose picture is shown when you look up definitions for terms in the dictionary. Like "gullible".
Dictionaries don't define any word or phrase. You ARE gullible. As far as your picture, you doxxed yourself. You have only yourself to blame.
Im a BM wrote:
But even most scientifically illiterate morons aren't gullible enough to REFUSE TO BELIEVE that petroleum formed from organic carbon contained in organisms that died hundreds of millions of years ago.
You are!
Im a BM wrote:
But it's not such a leap.
Once you REFUSE TO BELIEVE in sea level rise,
What sea level rise?? It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
Im a BM wrote:
global warming,
What global warming?? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
coral reef damage,
What coral reef damage??
Im a BM wrote:
or all that other evidence from the PRESENT real world..
You are listing evidence. You are only listing random numbers and phrases.
Im a BM wrote:
It is even EASIER to come up with an ABSURD denial of what happened in the past.
You don't know what happened in the distant past.
Im a BM wrote:
ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIANS!
Correct. You are finally getting this.
Im a BM wrote:
LONG LIVE CLIMATE-DEBATE.COM!
Works for me!
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 |
| 07-01-2025 00:02 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O
and since it is ENDOthermic.
H2 + CO2 + (?) calories or joules per mole, to make CH4 and H2O
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Of course they are all LYING.
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
The post directly a few posts above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
| 07-01-2025 00:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. 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 |
| 07-01-2025 18:20 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
"You don't get to quote everyone." - Into the Night
Is this another Commandment from the secret Bible of Falsifiable Theories?
Does the WACKY religious dogma of the Church of Thermodenial forbid the use of quotes?
Or perhaps just as only selected humans are endowed by the institution with the power to transform regular water into holy water...
Does one have to be ordained as a priest in the Church of Thermodenial to be endowed by the institution with their permission to quote everyone?
It makes sense that someone who routinely LIES in order to DENY HIS OWN POSTS wouldn't want someone else to "quote everyone".
I wish you would actually QUOTE ME before you provide ABSURD RESPONSES to things I never said.
Did I ever say "science is a degree", even ONCE?
Why do you perpetually respond with "Science is not a degree."
Show me the quotes where I force you to respond that it is NOT a chemical.
I read the posts where a single sentence gets repeated again and again, and it pretends to be a response to something...
STOP SPAMMING with posts that are in response to the voices in your head.
And find the exact quotes before you make false accusations about what someone else said.
The go learn some chemistry so you can understand how MEANINGLESS it is to make an entire argument based on vocabulary word games about the secret definition of the term "chemical".
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
Edited on 07-01-2025 18:31 |
| 07-01-2025 20:26 |
Swan ★★★★★
(6514) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
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 |
| 07-01-2025 22:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
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 |
| 07-01-2025 22:31 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
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 |
| 08-01-2025 01:03 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
Edited on 08-01-2025 01:06 |
| 08-01-2025 03:11 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did |
| 08-01-2025 03:31 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
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 |
| 08-01-2025 18:20 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
You could try to explain what SCIENTISTS think the term "hydrogenotrophic" means.
Into the Night will simply declare that there is "no such thing" as hydrogenotrophic. Again. And again and again, if needed. It doesn't even EXIST as something that could be discussed. And that will be all the proof anyone ever needs.
The "science" of what is NOT always "wins" the "debate".
The "chemistry" knowledge of the "chemist" known as Into the Night is so advanced that the textbooks won't be catching up for years.
Because science is not a textbook. It's whatever Into the Night says it is. |
| 08-01-2025 18:31 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
You could try to explain what SCIENTISTS think the term "hydrogenotrophic" means.
Into the Night will simply declare that there is "no such thing" as hydrogenotrophic. Again. And again and again, if needed. It doesn't even EXIST as something that could be discussed. And that will be all the proof anyone ever needs.
The "science" of what is NOT always "wins" the "debate".
The "chemistry" knowledge of the "chemist" known as Into the Night is so advanced that the textbooks won't be catching up for years.
Because science is not a textbook. It's whatever Into the Night says it is.
I giggle every time a dumb little boy or girl uses the term scientist, because at this juncture I am a scientist, but then again we are all scientist to someone.
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 |
| 08-01-2025 18:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
When Swan posted the term "hydrogenotrophic", he was using a genuine term that "scientists" (dumb little boys and girls) use in "truly scientific" literature.
To his credit, Swan didn't pretend to UNDERSTAND the term.
Of course he didn't have any idea what it meant.
But at least he isn't so stubbornly stupid that he REFUSES TO BELIEVE that "hydrogenotrophic" even exists.
Swan at least understands that scientific knowledge exists SOMEWHERE, and it is not a secret thing that only a couple of Internet trolls know how to find.
Perhaps a bit too hasty to copy words he doesn't understand, mistakes do happen.
Swan found the CORRECT definition for CARBOHYDRATE. Carbohydrate = SACHARRIDE.
Swan also found the correct definition for LIGNIN (absolutely NOT a carbohydrate)
But not knowing what any of the words he copies actually MEAN, he got them mixed up into a COMBINED definition of lignin is a sacharride aromatic alcohol.
Making lignin some kind of impossible phenolic carbohydrate.
But at least Swan understands that valid definitions can be found via research.
The other clowns just pretend none of it exists and make up their OWN definitions. Very flexible definitions at that.
Your attorney in Definition Court whispers the question to you before deciding how to make the argument.
"What do you NEED it to mean?"
A good attorney can play the word games to make it mean, or NOT mean, anything you NEED it to.
And "There is no such thing as.." trumps EVERY argument.
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
You could try to explain what SCIENTISTS think the term "hydrogenotrophic" means.
Into the Night will simply declare that there is "no such thing" as hydrogenotrophic. Again. And again and again, if needed. It doesn't even EXIST as something that could be discussed. And that will be all the proof anyone ever needs.
The "science" of what is NOT always "wins" the "debate".
The "chemistry" knowledge of the "chemist" known as Into the Night is so advanced that the textbooks won't be catching up for years.
Because science is not a textbook. It's whatever Into the Night says it is.
I giggle every time a dumb little boy or girl uses the term scientist, because at this juncture I am a scientist, but then again we are all scientist to someone. |
| 08-01-2025 20:21 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Im a BM wrote:
When Swan posted the term "hydrogenotrophic", he was using a genuine term that "scientists" (dumb little boys and girls) use in "truly scientific" literature.
To his credit, Swan didn't pretend to UNDERSTAND the term.
Of course he didn't have any idea what it meant.
But at least he isn't so stubbornly stupid that he REFUSES TO BELIEVE that "hydrogenotrophic" even exists.
Swan at least understands that scientific knowledge exists SOMEWHERE, and it is not a secret thing that only a couple of Internet trolls know how to find.
Perhaps a bit too hasty to copy words he doesn't understand, mistakes do happen.
Swan found the CORRECT definition for CARBOHYDRATE. Carbohydrate = SACHARRIDE.
Swan also found the correct definition for LIGNIN (absolutely NOT a carbohydrate)
But not knowing what any of the words he copies actually MEAN, he got them mixed up into a COMBINED definition of lignin is a sacharride aromatic alcohol.
Making lignin some kind of impossible phenolic carbohydrate.
But at least Swan understands that valid definitions can be found via research.
The other clowns just pretend none of it exists and make up their OWN definitions. Very flexible definitions at that.
Your attorney in Definition Court whispers the question to you before deciding how to make the argument.
"What do you NEED it to mean?"
A good attorney can play the word games to make it mean, or NOT mean, anything you NEED it to.
And "There is no such thing as.." trumps EVERY argument.
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
You could try to explain what SCIENTISTS think the term "hydrogenotrophic" means.
Into the Night will simply declare that there is "no such thing" as hydrogenotrophic. Again. And again and again, if needed. It doesn't even EXIST as something that could be discussed. And that will be all the proof anyone ever needs.
The "science" of what is NOT always "wins" the "debate".
The "chemistry" knowledge of the "chemist" known as Into the Night is so advanced that the textbooks won't be catching up for years.
Because science is not a textbook. It's whatever Into the Night says it is.
I giggle every time a dumb little boy or girl uses the term scientist, because at this juncture I am a scientist, but then again we are all scientist to someone.
You literally do not even know what science is. But at least you enjoy saying it
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 |
| 08-01-2025 22:16 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
"You literally do not even know what science is." - Swan, IQ = 130 Apple$
Swan, I'm sure that "the Board" here agrees with your assessment.
They have explicitly stated the very same assertion on multiple occasions.
I literally do not even know what science is.
Uh, oh!
I feel another existential crisis coming on.
I'm one of the little boys and girls that thinks itself to be a "scientist".
If I literally do not even know what science is...
I literally do not even know what I AM.
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
When Swan posted the term "hydrogenotrophic", he was using a genuine term that "scientists" (dumb little boys and girls) use in "truly scientific" literature.
To his credit, Swan didn't pretend to UNDERSTAND the term.
Of course he didn't have any idea what it meant.
But at least he isn't so stubbornly stupid that he REFUSES TO BELIEVE that "hydrogenotrophic" even exists.
Swan at least understands that scientific knowledge exists SOMEWHERE, and it is not a secret thing that only a couple of Internet trolls know how to find.
Perhaps a bit too hasty to copy words he doesn't understand, mistakes do happen.
Swan found the CORRECT definition for CARBOHYDRATE. Carbohydrate = SACHARRIDE.
Swan also found the correct definition for LIGNIN (absolutely NOT a carbohydrate)
But not knowing what any of the words he copies actually MEAN, he got them mixed up into a COMBINED definition of lignin is a sacharride aromatic alcohol.
Making lignin some kind of impossible phenolic carbohydrate.
But at least Swan understands that valid definitions can be found via research.
The other clowns just pretend none of it exists and make up their OWN definitions. Very flexible definitions at that.
Your attorney in Definition Court whispers the question to you before deciding how to make the argument.
"What do you NEED it to mean?"
A good attorney can play the word games to make it mean, or NOT mean, anything you NEED it to.
And "There is no such thing as.." trumps EVERY argument.
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
You could try to explain what SCIENTISTS think the term "hydrogenotrophic" means.
Into the Night will simply declare that there is "no such thing" as hydrogenotrophic. Again. And again and again, if needed. It doesn't even EXIST as something that could be discussed. And that will be all the proof anyone ever needs.
The "science" of what is NOT always "wins" the "debate".
The "chemistry" knowledge of the "chemist" known as Into the Night is so advanced that the textbooks won't be catching up for years.
Because science is not a textbook. It's whatever Into the Night says it is.
I giggle every time a dumb little boy or girl uses the term scientist, because at this juncture I am a scientist, but then again we are all scientist to someone.
You literally do not even know what science is. But at least you enjoy saying it |
| 09-01-2025 00:06 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Im a BM wrote:
"You literally do not even know what science is." - Swan, IQ = 130 Apple$
Swan, I'm sure that "the Board" here agrees with your assessment.
They have explicitly stated the very same assertion on multiple occasions.
I literally do not even know what science is.
Uh, oh!
I feel another existential crisis coming on.
I'm one of the little boys and girls that thinks itself to be a "scientist".
If I literally do not even know what science is...
I literally do not even know what I AM.
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
When Swan posted the term "hydrogenotrophic", he was using a genuine term that "scientists" (dumb little boys and girls) use in "truly scientific" literature.
To his credit, Swan didn't pretend to UNDERSTAND the term.
Of course he didn't have any idea what it meant.
But at least he isn't so stubbornly stupid that he REFUSES TO BELIEVE that "hydrogenotrophic" even exists.
Swan at least understands that scientific knowledge exists SOMEWHERE, and it is not a secret thing that only a couple of Internet trolls know how to find.
Perhaps a bit too hasty to copy words he doesn't understand, mistakes do happen.
Swan found the CORRECT definition for CARBOHYDRATE. Carbohydrate = SACHARRIDE.
Swan also found the correct definition for LIGNIN (absolutely NOT a carbohydrate)
But not knowing what any of the words he copies actually MEAN, he got them mixed up into a COMBINED definition of lignin is a sacharride aromatic alcohol.
Making lignin some kind of impossible phenolic carbohydrate.
But at least Swan understands that valid definitions can be found via research.
The other clowns just pretend none of it exists and make up their OWN definitions. Very flexible definitions at that.
Your attorney in Definition Court whispers the question to you before deciding how to make the argument.
"What do you NEED it to mean?"
A good attorney can play the word games to make it mean, or NOT mean, anything you NEED it to.
And "There is no such thing as.." trumps EVERY argument.
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan correctly identifies that methanogenesis is NOT a "buzzword" to any who are not mentally impaired.
I offer unsolicited praise for at least SOME of what Swan does and does not do at this website.
Swan displays basic common sense in recognizing that it IS possible to find accurate information about scientific questions from credible sources. Kudos.
Swan does NOT display the inexcusable ARROGANCE and despicable DISHONESTY of pretending that he is a "chemist". As a professional title in a specified field of science, it can actually be a criminal act of fraud to falsely claim to have it.
Swan does NOT display the disgusting sadistic sociopathic trait of pretending he is a "scientist" whose infallible omniscience entitles him to belittle others as, "scientifically illiterate morons".
Yes, in microbial methanogenesis, carbon dioxide is the TERMINAL ELECTRON ACCEPTOR, getting REDUCED to methane during "anaerobic respiration".
You can get a LOT more energy out of hydrogen by oxidizing it with oxygen gas, as hydrogen vehicles do, compared to oxidizing it with carbon dioxide.
On the other hand, if there are no other terminal electron acceptors available (i.e. low oxygen conditions) the relatively small amount of energy acquired using carbon dioxide instead of oxygen is compensated by being the only competitor able to use the available hydrogen.
I know that Into the Night will EVADE this, but I would LOVE to see some lame explanation for the claim that the process by which methanogenic archaea bacteria take H2 and combine it with CO2 to make CH4 and H2O is ENDOthermic.
Because somewhere in the process he would have to make some stupid assertion about the thermodynamics involved, to which it can be replied:
"You cannot create energy out of nothing."
Does Into the Night have the slightest CLUE how real chemists apply THERMODYNAMICS to calculate how EXOTHERMIC this reaction is?
Does Into the Night want to show how HE calculates the reaction to be ENDOTHERMIC, perhaps even telling how many joules or calories are CONSUMED per mole of methane generated?
Of course he wouldn't know where to start.
So he'll come back with an authoritative "something is NOT something else" claim, which explains it ALL so thoroughly, in real chemist's language.
And maybe Into the Night can FINALLY learn some rudimentary, basic thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
There is no such thing as 'methanogenesis'.
The synthesis of methane is endothermic.
Im a BM wrote:
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
A carbohydrate is not a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
No bacteria needed.
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Chemistry is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
It is neither. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Never. I don't use buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
Simple. You can burn methane and petroleum. You cannot burn carbon dioxide or water.
Im a BM wrote:
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
No such word. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Chemistry isn't a search engine.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course they are all LYING.
Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
There is no oxygen in a hydrocarbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
Nope. Science does not redefine any word. Go learn English.
What is the methanogenesis process?
Methanogenesis - ScienceDirect
Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the final product of metabolism. In aerobic respiration, organic matter such as glucose is oxidized to CO2, and O2 is reduced to H2O. In contrast, during hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, H2 is oxidized to H+, and CO2 is reduced to CH4.
There is no such thing as methanogenesis. There is no such thing as hydrogenotrophic.
Did your Mommy teach you that? Because it is wrong, just like she was wrong for doing what she did
One more time please
You could try to explain what SCIENTISTS think the term "hydrogenotrophic" means.
Into the Night will simply declare that there is "no such thing" as hydrogenotrophic. Again. And again and again, if needed. It doesn't even EXIST as something that could be discussed. And that will be all the proof anyone ever needs.
The "science" of what is NOT always "wins" the "debate".
The "chemistry" knowledge of the "chemist" known as Into the Night is so advanced that the textbooks won't be catching up for years.
Because science is not a textbook. It's whatever Into the Night says it is.
I giggle every time a dumb little boy or girl uses the term scientist, because at this juncture I am a scientist, but then again we are all scientist to someone.
You literally do not even know what science is. But at least you enjoy saying it
Market Summary
>
Apple Inc
242.70 USD
+242.57 (186,592.31%)all time
Hey, please do not make fun of my splitting apples, as this is a serious problem and may result in billions of Apples that no one can eat. So instead of mocking fruits, perhaps you can engineer an ai apple that is resistant to splitting.
Never mind as that is already being done as my technical staff just reminded me of. Seems that someone who smells like donuts is monitoring my location quite well and are even drugging the dogs so that they fight like they did decades ago
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 |
| 09-01-2025 03:27 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Must be one of them wiseguys again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek
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
Edited on 09-01-2025 03:28 |
| 09-01-2025 03:33 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O
and since it is ENDOthermic.
H2 + CO2 + (?) calories or joules per mole, to make CH4 and H2O
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Of course they are all LYING.
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
The post directly a few posts above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
| 09-01-2025 13:29 |
Swan★★★★★
(6514) |
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O
and since it is ENDOthermic.
H2 + CO2 + (?) calories or joules per mole, to make CH4 and H2O
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Of course they are all LYING.
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
The post directly a few posts above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.
All mammals produce methane, therefore you are advocating for the extinction of all mammals in order to save.....? Hitler was brighter than you all
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 |
| 09-01-2025 17:51 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O
and since it is ENDOthermic.
H2 + CO2 + (?) calories or joules per mole, to make CH4 and H2O
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Of course they are all LYING.
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
The post directly a few posts above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.
All mammals produce methane, therefore you are advocating for the extinction of all mammals in order to save.....? Hitler was brighter than you all
I guess if you count TINY amounts of methane, it is true that "All mammals produce methane"... Even so, it is the anaerobic BACTERIA that produce the methane.
I was not aware that I was "advocating for the extinction of all mammals in order to save...?"
I am reminded of Into the Night's insightful analysis that I "want to kill all the plants" because I would like to see atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide return to pre-industrial levels.
It is possible, but unlikely, that Hitler had IQ greater than 130. Even if he did, there is NO WAY that he was brighter than us ALL.
I encourage Swan to READ first before responding to hallucinations.
I am advocating for research into how to have as many cattle as needed to feed humanity, WITHOUT cattle being the source of 1/3 of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
Very FEW mammals put out methane the way bovine ruminants do.
Damn, Swan! Didn't you even read your own posts?
You already identified the BACTERIA (which are not mammals OR amphibians) that make the methane.
You even brought in the "hydrogenotrophic" thing to the discussion.
It makes more sense now, to realize that you simply cut and paste the stuff without reading it or even TRYING to understand what it means.
Edited on 09-01-2025 17:55 |
| 11-01-2025 03:41 |
Anders☆☆☆☆☆
(36) |
Im not a big fan of IB the one you know...but you are really fighting about the smallest issues i have ever heard about. Is it impossible for you to find something real to be mad about, instead of details about words.
You sounds like crazy people... |
| 11-01-2025 17:15 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
The THERMODYNAMICS of COW GAS!
The chemical or microbiological process of METHANOGENESIS involves some thermodynamics which, at climate-debate.com, are controversial.
Carbon dioxide, CO2, combines with hydrogen, H2, to make methane, CH4, and water, H2O.
The archaea bacteria in cow guts that produce methane gas use the process of methanogenesis to acquire ALL the energy for their life needs. They aren't burning up any sugar they are finding or taking in anything that can be used to get metabolic energy. Just sticking hydrogen on to carbon dioxide to get ALL their calories.
SOME chemists say that the thermodynamics of methanogenesis is EXO thermic.
Into the Night says it is ENDO thermic.
Because Into the Night understands THERMODYNAMICS on a whole different level than those so-called physicists and chemists.
This ENDO thermic process of combining carbon dioxide with hydrogen wouldn't seem like a very profitable way for a bacteria to make a living.
Into the Night now has the opportunity to display his supremacy in the field of THERMODYNAMICS while also, once again, reaffirming that he is a world class CHEMIST.
Please please please, Into the Night, explain how methanogenesis is endothermic.
Don't you remember how many times you repeated that specific assertion?
Now you can show us how the ENDOthermic chemical reaction is really happening in cow guts, or even during the formation of magic petroleum.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O
and since it is ENDOthermic.
H2 + CO2 + (?) calories or joules per mole, to make CH4 and H2O
The reach of the Marxist warmazombies is SO extensive, they're even into methanogenesis propaganda.
I'll bet a GOOGLE search would even claim it is an EXO thermic chemical reaction. Maybe even with a specific identified quantity of energy involved.
Of course they are all LYING.
Energy is CONSUMED by forcing carbon dioxide to behave as an incredibly weak oxidant or terminal electron acceptor in order to oxidize hydrogen.
Methanogenic bacteria suck up energy from a magic source, just so they can use it to make methane to give away to the atmosphere. Because it is ENDOthermic. But those bacteria know how badly the atmosphere needs the methane, so its worth it to scrounge up all the energy they can find and use it to make methane.
The infallible omniscience of Into the Night at the intersection of THERMODYNAMICS and CHEMISTRY is a spectacular thing to behold.
Or maybe there is a wild new definition for the term "endothermic"?
The post directly a few posts above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS.
This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma.
No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission.
And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it.
If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no".
If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas".
In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere.
Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable.
----------
COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions.
August 25, 2024 The Washington Post
Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright
----------------------------------------------------------
COW GAS!
The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion.
All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!)
Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame.
Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
Why do cows emit methane?
Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur.
Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas.
Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right?
But that's where some different little critters some in.
Methanogenic bacteria.
Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria.
They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane.
So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows.
I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications.
But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts.
One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it.
Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process.
Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions.
------------------------------
The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission.
So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work.
If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition.
Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering.
If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants.
On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force.
Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed.
A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen.
As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again.
This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere.
Additional thoughts:
My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people.
WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming.
AND with an important caveat.
We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle.
If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream.
And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
| 14-01-2025 21:30 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
This thread has gotten 1040 views.
There may only be six different people posting, but there are certainly more than six people seeing it. If a new viewer is intrigued enough about this kind of applied biogeochemistry, posts such as this can be read without needing to know about any "debate". Posts by Im a BM and sealover are easy to find.
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons
Cow gas is discussed in this thread in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts.
However, for more background about gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies.
The myth of the fire breathing dragon.
Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING.
However, this just doesn't happen much. We've had a lot of cows around for a long time, and if their belches were flaming somewhere... Somebody would have caught it on camera by now.
The origin of the fire dragon myth may yet have been a belching cow, but it would have taken more than just methane to make it happen.
And it theoretically very plausible that this could have happened by having the explosively flammable gas PHOSPHINE present along with all the methane in the cow belch.
Start with the methane.
Cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions where a variety of different microorganisms engage in a feeding frenzy.
Some of those microorganisms produce hydrogen gas.
That hydrogen gas is then used by methanogenic bacteria to make methane.
H2 + CO2 = CH4 The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane.
These bacteria are among the oldest line of living organisms on earth.
Fire breathing dragon?
If a cow were to inadvertently eat something exceptionally rich in phosphate, with right kind of anaerobic bacteria present (phosphate reducers), phosphine gas could be produced in the cow guts.
Phosphate, P(V) PO4(3-) gets reduced to phosphite, P(III) PO3(3-)
Phosphite can be further reduced to phosphine
PO3(3-) P(III) becomes H3P P(zero)
Phosphine, H3P, is extremely flammable and can spontaneously ignite upon contact with 21% oxygen atmosphere.
With some phosphine, H3P, to set off the methane, CH4, in the cow's belch...
There is a very real possibility that some cow somewhere may have provided the sight that inspired the myth.
And now, there is a very real possibility that applied microbiology will tip the scales of microbiological ecology in cow guts, so that methanogenic bacteria don't make so much methane out of hydrogen. |
| 17-01-2025 02:34 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Anders wrote:
Im not a big fan of IB the one you know...but you are really fighting about the smallest issues i have ever heard about. Is it impossible for you to find something real to be mad about, instead of details about words.
You sounds like crazy people...
:thumbsup:
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 |
| 17-01-2025 19:11 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Into the Night wrote:
Anders wrote:
Im not a big fan of IB the one you know...but you are really fighting about the smallest issues i have ever heard about. Is it impossible for you to find something real to be mad about, instead of details about words.
You sounds like crazy people...
:thumbsup:
Incapable of experiencing the emotion of shame or humiliation.
The Troll King of Spam is just a couple of weeks away from 23,000 posts!
Remember how important it is for scientists to define their terms?
If a new member posts the term "climate change" without defining it, they are subjected to hostile cross examination.
To go ahead and use a term without defining it renders that term a meaningless "buzzword".
So, "pH" is just a MEANINGLESS BUZZWORD, at least in the nonsensical context of how Into the Night uses the term "pH"
Because according to scientists in the real world:
pH = -log[H+],
with hydrogen ion concentration expressed as Molarity (moles H+ per liter) or Normality (equivalents H+ charge per liter)
Therefore any strong mineral acid mixed to a concentration of 1.0 M or 1.0 N, or higher, will have pH LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO ZERO.
Basic chemistry facts in all the real world chemistry textbooks.
So, DEFINE YOUR TERMS, Into the Night, if you are going to insist that pH is SOMETHING ELSE. |
| 17-01-2025 19:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Anders wrote:
Im not a big fan of IB the one you know...but you are really fighting about the smallest issues i have ever heard about. Is it impossible for you to find something real to be mad about, instead of details about words.
You sounds like crazy people...
:thumbsup:
Incapable of experiencing the emotion of shame or humiliation.
The Troll King of Spam is just a couple of weeks away from 23,000 posts!
I was complimenting him. You don't have 23,000 posts.
Im a BM wrote:
Remember how important it is for scientists to define their terms?
Already did. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
If a new member posts the term "climate change" without defining it, they are subjected to hostile cross examination.
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
To go ahead and use a term without defining it renders that term a meaningless "buzzword".
'climate change' is a buzzword. Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
So, "pH" is just a MEANINGLESS BUZZWORD, at least in the nonsensical context of how Into the Night uses the term "pH"
Already defined. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Because according to scientists in the real world:
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
pH = -log[H+],
with hydrogen ion concentration expressed as Molarity (moles H+ per liter) or Normality (equivalents H+ charge per liter)
Wrong. Not what pH is.
Im a BM wrote:
Therefore any strong mineral acid mixed to a concentration of 1.0 M or 1.0 N, or higher, will have pH LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO ZERO.
It is not possible to have a pH less than or equal to zero.
Im a BM wrote:
Basic chemistry facts in all the real world chemistry textbooks.
You don't get to quote every book. Chemistry is not a textbook. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
So, DEFINE YOUR TERMS, Into the Night, if you are going to insist that pH is SOMETHING ELSE.
Already did. RQAA.
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 |
| 17-01-2025 22:50 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
Which came first?
pH? or the pH SCALE?
Of course, this "paradox" is every bit as easy to resolve as the question:
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
OBVIOUSLY the egg came first!
Neither the cock nor the hen who combined their efforts to conceive that egg were a chicken. Pretty damn close, but some crucial mutation away.
And OBVIOUSLY someone decided what pH IS before they conceived the scale to display it on.
What pH IS = -log[H+]
The negative logarithm of [H+]
Convenient to use a logarithmic notation because in terms of absolute concentration, H+ varies over about six orders of magnitude in nature.
So, they conceived what pH IS, then wanted to display that new concept on a SCALE.
Lo and behold, NEARLY every naturally occurring solution has a pH somewhere between zero and fourteen. To place the pH of just about anything anyone wanted to discuss on a scale, it fell between zero and fourteen.
They DID have the option to extend the scale to display -1 and 15.
They certainly didn't draw any red line at pH zero with a do not cross prohibition.
A 1.0 molar solution of hydrochloric acid has pH = 0.
It's easy to mix concentrated hydrochloric acid to get 5.0 molar, or even 10.0 molar.
Add just a smidgeon of water to some concentrated HCl to get 10.0 Normal, and you get pH = -1.0
And a 1.0 N solution of sodium hydroxide gives you pH = 14.
Easy enough to make your caustic soda five times stronger, taking you ABOVE pH 14.
No red line on the pH scale dictates the chemical behavior of hydrogen ions or hydroxide ions in solution.
No, the scale did NOT come first.
The pH scale did not impose physical or chemical limitations on the limits of the range, with the definition of pH FOLLOWING invention of the scale, to be in compliance with it.
Yup. It was the EGG that came first, conceived by two birds who were almost chickens.
And the definition of pH as = -log[H+] came BEFORE they set up a scale to display it. Read the fine print about what the numbers actually mean. |
| 18-01-2025 09:09 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
Which came first?
pH? or the pH SCALE?
They came at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, this "paradox" is every bit as easy to resolve as the question:
Not a paradox.
Im a BM wrote:
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
According to the Bible, the chicken came first.
Im a BM wrote:
OBVIOUSLY the egg came first!
Not according to the Bible.
Im a BM wrote:
Neither the cock nor the hen who combined their efforts to conceive that egg were a chicken. Pretty damn close, but some crucial mutation away.
Not according to the Bible.
Im a BM wrote:
And OBVIOUSLY someone decided what pH IS before they conceived the scale to display it on.
Nope. Both were defined at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
What pH IS = -log[H+]
The negative logarithm of [H+]
Not the definition of pH.
Im a BM wrote:
Convenient to use a logarithmic notation because in terms of absolute concentration, H+ varies over about six orders of magnitude in nature.
Not the definition of pH.
Im a BM wrote:
So, they conceived what pH IS, then wanted to display that new concept on a SCALE.
You don't know what pH is, or what buffering is.
Im a BM wrote:
Lo and behold, NEARLY every naturally occurring solution has a pH somewhere between zero and fourteen. To place the pH of just about anything anyone wanted to discuss on a scale, it fell between zero and fourteen.
pH is greater than zero and less than fourteen.
Im a BM wrote:
They DID have the option to extend the scale to display -1 and 15.
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
They certainly didn't draw any red line at pH zero with a do not cross prohibition.
pH cannot be zero.
Im a BM wrote:
A 1.0 molar solution of hydrochloric acid has pH = 0.
No, it doesn't.
Im a BM wrote:
It's easy to mix concentrated hydrochloric acid to get 5.0 molar, or even 10.0 molar.
Irrelevant.
Im a BM wrote:
Add just a smidgeon of water to some concentrated HCl to get 10.0 Normal, and you get pH = -1.0
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
And a 1.0 N solution of sodium hydroxide gives you pH = 14.
Incorrect.
Im a BM wrote:
Easy enough to make your caustic soda five times stronger, taking you ABOVE pH 14.
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
No red line on the pH scale dictates the chemical behavior of hydrogen ions or hydroxide ions in solution.
Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
No, the scale did NOT come first.
Correct. pH and it's scale arrived at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
The pH scale did not impose physical or chemical limitations on the limits of the range, with the definition of pH FOLLOWING invention of the scale, to be in compliance with it.
Nope. pH and it's scale arrived at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
Yup. It was the EGG that came first, conceived by two birds who were almost chickens.
Not according to the Bible. The chicken came first.
Im a BM wrote:
And the definition of pH as = -log[H+]
Wrong.
Im a BM wrote:
came BEFORE they set up a scale to display it. Read the fine print about what the numbers actually mean.
pH and it's scale arrived at the same time.
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 |
| 18-01-2025 23:47 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
This thread really IS about "cow gas" (methane), belched out by cattle due to methanogenic archaea bacteria in their guts. It's about how to engineer the microbiological ecosystem where a variety of different species engage in a feeding frenzy under very low oxygen conditions.
Please scroll up to the top of this page for more about this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEWEST EDITION of the Standard Chemistry Textbook.
New and improved, the wisdom of Into the Night has been incorporated.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH = -log[H+]
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that pH is a RATIO.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH buffering as the action of solutes that minimize pH change upon addition of acid or base.
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that DILUTION is buffering.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of "carbohydrate" = "saccharide"
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that a carbohydrate is lignin, polyphenol, vegetable oil, or any other non-protein organic compound synthesized by a plant.
They have removed the INCORRECT use of terms "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron, which are actually just meaningless buzzwords.
They have been replaced with the CORRECT definition that ALL iron is "ferric", because the symbol for the element is Fe.
They have removed the INCORRECT use of the term "proton" as a reference to hydrogen ions.
This has been replaced by the CORRECT assertion that "Hydrogen is not a proton.", which nullifies the validity of any sentence in which the term "proton" is used to refer to H+
They have removed the INCORRECT use of the words "carbonate" "fluoride" and all other terms that can refer to anions without naming an entire chemical compound.
They have added a CORRECT index to identify all the major NOT a chemicals as meaningless buzzwords which nullify the validity of any sentence they are associated with. You cannot buffer against pH change with a buzzword.
I've only scratched the surface of all the important revisions that the new chemistry textbook will include when the genius of Into the Night is included.
Edited on 19-01-2025 00:12 |
| 19-01-2025 01:09 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
This thread really IS about "cow gas" (methane), belched out by cattle due to methanogenic archaea bacteria in their guts. It's about how to engineer the microbiological ecosystem where a variety of different species engage in a feeding frenzy under very low oxygen conditions.
Please scroll up to the top of this page for more about this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEWEST EDITION of the Standard Chemistry Textbook.
New and improved, the wisdom of Into the Night has been incorporated.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH = -log[H+]
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that pH is a RATIO.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH buffering as the action of solutes that minimize pH change upon addition of acid or base.
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that DILUTION is buffering.
They have removed all INCORRECT references to "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" as chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms in chemically reduced oxidation state. Such as the TENS OF THOUSANDS of chemical compounds that are the subject of ORGANIC CHEMISTRY.
They have replaced it with the explanation that there is no such thing as organic carbon or organic nitrogen. The presence of these meaningless buzzwords in any sentence nullifies its validity.
They have removed INCORRECT references to "inorganic carbon" as chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state - a very short list that includes carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.
This has been replaced with the authoritative explanation that there is NO SUCH THING as "inorganic carbon". A meaningless buzzword that transforms any sentence into non science gibber babble which we do not hear.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of "carbohydrate" = "saccharide"
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that a carbohydrate is lignin, polyphenol, vegetable oil, or any other non-protein organic compound synthesized by a plant.
They have removed the INCORRECT use of terms "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron, which are actually just meaningless buzzwords.
They have been replaced with the CORRECT definition that ALL iron is "ferric", because the symbol for the element is Fe.
They have removed the INCORRECT use of the term "proton" as a reference to hydrogen ions.
This has been replaced by the CORRECT assertion that "Hydrogen is not a proton.", which nullifies the validity of any sentence in which the term "proton" is used to refer to H+
The have removed INCORRECT references to "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron".
They have been replaced with the CORRECT assertion that ALL iron is "ferric" iron because the element symbol for iron is Fe.
They have removed INCORRECT references to "sulfate reduction" or "nitrate reduction" carried out by bacteria under low oxygen conditions, during which they use sulfate or nitrate as terminal electron acceptors.
They have been replaced with the CORRECT explanation that nitrate cannot be reduced and sulfate cannot be reduced. This nullifies the validity of any sentence including the terms "sulfate reduction" or "nitrate reduction"
They have removed the INCORRECT use of the words "carbonate" "fluoride" and all other terms that can refer to anions without naming an entire chemical compound.
They have added a CORRECT index to identify all the major NOT a chemicals as meaningless buzzwords which nullify the validity of any sentence they are associated with. You cannot buffer against pH change with a buzzword.
They have radically revised the thermodynamics section and removed the INCORRECT definition of "endothermic" chemical reactions.
They have corrected it to a new definition under which microbial methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria, during which 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O as they combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to make methane is ENDOTHERMIC. Explaining how they get all their metabolic energy.
I've only scratched the surface of all the important revisions that the new chemistry textbook will include when the genius of Into the Night is included.
Edited on 19-01-2025 01:19 |
| 19-01-2025 02:35 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
This thread really IS about "cow gas" (methane), belched out by cattle due to methanogenic archaea bacteria in their guts. It's about how to engineer the microbiological ecosystem where a variety of different species engage in a feeding frenzy under very low oxygen conditions.
Please scroll up to the top of this page for more about this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEWEST EDITION of the Standard Chemistry Textbook.
New and improved, the wisdom of Into the Night has been incorporated.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH = -log[H+]
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that pH is a RATIO.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH buffering as the action of solutes that minimize pH change upon addition of acid or base.
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that DILUTION is buffering.
They have removed all INCORRECT references to "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" as chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms in chemically reduced oxidation state. Such as the TENS OF THOUSANDS of chemical compounds that are the subject of ORGANIC CHEMISTRY.
They have replaced it with the explanation that there is no such thing as organic carbon or organic nitrogen. The presence of these meaningless buzzwords in any sentence nullifies its validity.
They have removed INCORRECT references to "inorganic carbon" as chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state - a very short list that includes carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion.
This has been replaced with the authoritative explanation that there is NO SUCH THING as "inorganic carbon". A meaningless buzzword that transforms any sentence into non science gibber babble which we do not hear.
They have removed the INCORRECT definition of "carbohydrate" = "saccharide"
They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that a carbohydrate is lignin, polyphenol, vegetable oil, or any other non-protein organic compound synthesized by a plant.
They have removed the INCORRECT use of terms "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron, which are actually just meaningless buzzwords.
They have been replaced with the CORRECT definition that ALL iron is "ferric", because the symbol for the element is Fe.
They have removed the INCORRECT use of the term "proton" as a reference to hydrogen ions.
This has been replaced by the CORRECT assertion that "Hydrogen is not a proton.", which nullifies the validity of any sentence in which the term "proton" is used to refer to H+
The have removed INCORRECT references to "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron".
They have been replaced with the CORRECT assertion that ALL iron is "ferric" iron because the element symbol for iron is Fe.
They have removed INCORRECT references to "sulfate reduction" or "nitrate reduction" carried out by bacteria under low oxygen conditions, during which they use sulfate or nitrate as terminal electron acceptors.
They have been replaced with the CORRECT explanation that nitrate cannot be reduced and sulfate cannot be reduced. This nullifies the validity of any sentence including the terms "sulfate reduction" or "nitrate reduction"
They have removed the INCORRECT use of the words "carbonate" "fluoride" and all other terms that can refer to anions without naming an entire chemical compound.
They have added a CORRECT index to identify all the major NOT a chemicals as meaningless buzzwords which nullify the validity of any sentence they are associated with. You cannot buffer against pH change with a buzzword.
They have radically revised the thermodynamics section and removed the INCORRECT definition of "endothermic" chemical reactions.
They have corrected it to a new definition under which microbial methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria, during which 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O as they combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to make methane is ENDOTHERMIC. Explaining how they get all their metabolic energy.
I've only scratched the surface of all the important revisions that the new chemistry textbook will include when the genius of Into the Night is included.
But wait!
It gets even BETTER.
Phantom Inertial Gases (PIGs) are now recognized as major players in atmospheric thermodynamics.
They're taking all the bullshit about "greenhouse gases" out of the chemistry textbooks. It was really PIGs that created the illusion of greenhouse effect.
Into the Night's genius hypothesis based on truly brilliant insight into the behavior of PIGs has DEBUNKED all that.
If his knowledge of water chemistry hasn't already dazzled you, wait until I get to quote everyone about ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. |
| 19-01-2025 19:19 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2283) |
"Not according to the Bible. The chicken came first." - Into the Night
The most authoritative scientific textbook ever published is the Bible.
As Into the Night points out, the Bible's lessons about evolutionary biology are unambiguous and have stood the test of time.
But then, Into the Night CONTRADICTS the Bible with his claim that "Climate cannot change".
READ THE BIBLE if you don't believe that climate can change!
Remember when God was so pissed at Adam and Eve that he shifted the climate's moisture regime, drying things out with a "curse upon the ground" that shifted much of the vegetation to arid-zone-adapted "thorns and thistles"?
Remember when God was so pissed at all humanity that he brought 40 days and 40 nights of unimaginably intense rain?
If that didn't count as climate change, it was certainly the most extreme weather event in history. How much rain would have to fall to make it happen?
Did it really flood all the way to the top of the Himalayas?
Let's pretend it only flooded everything up to 4000 meters elevation, just to get a handle on how many METERS PER DAY it was raining for 40 days. That still leaves a lot of dry land, but it gets the point across.
4000 meters of rainfall in 40 days. 100 meters per day. About 4 meters per hour of rain was coming down for 40 days. More than 6 centimeters per MINUTE of rain, MINIMUM, for 40 days and 40 nights just to flood up to 4000 meters. Just to flood MOST of the world.
I won't even ask where God got all the water, or where it all went later.
But if the Bible doesn't confirm that climate change DOES occur, it certainly documents some VERY EXTREME weather events.
If you don't believe that the Bible is the most accurate science textbook ever written, just look at the ASTRONOMY section! Clearly, the Earth is at the center of the universe, holding perfectly still as the sun moves across the sky. And when God wanted them to have more daylight to continue the battle, the sun STOPPED moving in the sky for a while.
Joshua 10:12-14 describes Joshua's prayer to God to stop the sun and moon, allowing the Israelite more time to defeat their enemies. This event is considered a MIRACLE in the biblical narrative. And it teaches basic principles about the fundamental nature of astronomy.
I'll have to take another look at the old book and see where it explains that pH is a RATIO that cannot be equal to or less than zero. Maybe THAT is where the "RQAA" was hidden, because I sure can't find it on THIS website.
Science is not the Bible! Is it?
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Which came first?
pH? or the pH SCALE?
They came at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, this "paradox" is every bit as easy to resolve as the question:
Not a paradox.
Im a BM wrote:
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
According to the Bible, the chicken came first.
Im a BM wrote:
OBVIOUSLY the egg came first!
Not according to the Bible.
Im a BM wrote:
Neither the cock nor the hen who combined their efforts to conceive that egg were a chicken. Pretty damn close, but some crucial mutation away.
Not according to the Bible.
Im a BM wrote:
And OBVIOUSLY someone decided what pH IS before they conceived the scale to display it on.
Nope. Both were defined at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
What pH IS = -log[H+]
The negative logarithm of [H+]
Not the definition of pH.
Im a BM wrote:
Convenient to use a logarithmic notation because in terms of absolute concentration, H+ varies over about six orders of magnitude in nature.
Not the definition of pH.
Im a BM wrote:
So, they conceived what pH IS, then wanted to display that new concept on a SCALE.
You don't know what pH is, or what buffering is.
Im a BM wrote:
Lo and behold, NEARLY every naturally occurring solution has a pH somewhere between zero and fourteen. To place the pH of just about anything anyone wanted to discuss on a scale, it fell between zero and fourteen.
pH is greater than zero and less than fourteen.
Im a BM wrote:
They DID have the option to extend the scale to display -1 and 15.
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
They certainly didn't draw any red line at pH zero with a do not cross prohibition.
pH cannot be zero.
Im a BM wrote:
A 1.0 molar solution of hydrochloric acid has pH = 0.
No, it doesn't.
Im a BM wrote:
It's easy to mix concentrated hydrochloric acid to get 5.0 molar, or even 10.0 molar.
Irrelevant.
Im a BM wrote:
Add just a smidgeon of water to some concentrated HCl to get 10.0 Normal, and you get pH = -1.0
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
And a 1.0 N solution of sodium hydroxide gives you pH = 14.
Incorrect.
Im a BM wrote:
Easy enough to make your caustic soda five times stronger, taking you ABOVE pH 14.
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
No red line on the pH scale dictates the chemical behavior of hydrogen ions or hydroxide ions in solution.
Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
No, the scale did NOT come first.
Correct. pH and it's scale arrived at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
The pH scale did not impose physical or chemical limitations on the limits of the range, with the definition of pH FOLLOWING invention of the scale, to be in compliance with it.
Nope. pH and it's scale arrived at the same time.
Im a BM wrote:
Yup. It was the EGG that came first, conceived by two birds who were almost chickens.
Not according to the Bible. The chicken came first.
Im a BM wrote:
And the definition of pH as = -log[H+]
Wrong.
Im a BM wrote:
came BEFORE they set up a scale to display it. Read the fine print about what the numbers actually mean.
pH and it's scale arrived at the same time.
Edited on 19-01-2025 19:37 |
| 19-01-2025 23:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23055) |
Im a BM wrote:
"Not according to the Bible. The chicken came first." - Into the Night
The most authoritative scientific textbook ever published is the Bible.
Science is not a textbook.
Im a BM wrote:
As Into the Night points out, the Bible's lessons about evolutionary biology are unambiguous and have stood the test of time.
The Bible does not discuss evolution or the Theory of Evolution.
Im a BM wrote:
But then, Into the Night CONTRADICTS the Bible with his claim that "Climate cannot change".
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
READ THE BIBLE if you don't believe that climate can change!
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Remember when God was so pissed at Adam and Eve that he shifted the climate's moisture regime, drying things out with a "curse upon the ground" that shifted much of the vegetation to arid-zone-adapted "thorns and thistles"?
Climate has no humidity.
Im a BM wrote:
Remember when God was so pissed at all humanity that he brought 40 days and 40 nights of unimaginably intense rain?
Climate has no precipitation.
Im a BM wrote:
If that didn't count as climate change,
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
it was certainly the most extreme weather event in history. How much rain would have to fall to make it happen?
Weather is not climate.
Im a BM wrote:
Did it really flood all the way to the top of the Himalayas?
The Himalayas weren't referenced in the Bible. How do you know they even existed? There was no mountain range called 'Himalayas' referenced at all in the Bible.
Im a BM wrote:
Let's pretend it only flooded everything up to 4000 meters elevation, just to get a handle on how many METERS PER DAY it was raining for 40 days. That still leaves a lot of dry land, but it gets the point across.
What point is that?
Im a BM wrote:
4000 meters of rainfall in 40 days. 100 meters per day. About 4 meters per hour of rain was coming down for 40 days. More than 6 centimeters per MINUTE of rain, MINIMUM, for 40 days and 40 nights just to flood up to 4000 meters. Just to flood MOST of the world.
I won't even ask where God got all the water, or where it all went later.
You are speculating.
Im a BM wrote:
But if the Bible doesn't confirm that climate change DOES occur, it certainly documents some VERY EXTREME weather events.
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
If you don't believe that the Bible is the most accurate science textbook ever written,
Science is not a textbook.
Im a BM wrote:
just look at the ASTRONOMY section!
What 'astronomy section'???
Im a BM wrote:
Clearly, the Earth is at the center of the universe,
Not stated in the Bible. The sources of the Theory of an Earth-centric universe came from Islam and from Aristotle. That theory has been falsified.
Im a BM wrote:
And when God wanted them to have more daylight to continue the battle, the sun STOPPED moving in the sky for a while.
Joshua 10:12-14 describes Joshua's prayer to God to stop the sun and moon, allowing the Israelite more time to defeat their enemies. This event is considered a MIRACLE in the biblical narrative. And it teaches basic principles about the fundamental nature of astronomy.
What astronomy???
Im a BM wrote:
I'll have to take another look at the old book and see where it explains that pH is a RATIO that cannot be equal to or less than zero. Maybe THAT is where the "RQAA" was hidden, because I sure can't find it on THIS website.
I'm not going to teach you chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Science is not the Bible! Is it?
Science is not a book.
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 |