Does ANYONE believe ITN is a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

I suspect he knows how to cook...

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

I suspect he knows how to cook...

This seems like faint praise - a tepid endorsement at best.

I can't say I've read anything by the guy to suggest cooking skills or not.

You, Spongy Iris, have seen the HUNDREDS of times he insists that the published, PhD biogeochemist is NOT a "chemist" or even a scientist. Indeed, you've seen how many hundred times he repeats the sentence, "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry".

If you were impressed by his presentation of chemistry knowledge...

Of course, you were not.

NOBODY is impressed by the chemistry knowledge displayed by Into the Night.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

I suspect he knows how to cook...

This seems like faint praise - a tepid endorsement at best.

I can't say I've read anything by the guy to suggest cooking skills or not.

You, Spongy Iris, have seen the HUNDREDS of times he insists that the published, PhD biogeochemist is NOT a "chemist" or even a scientist. Indeed, you've seen how many hundred times he repeats the sentence, "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry".

If you were impressed by his presentation of chemistry knowledge...

Of course, you were not.

NOBODY is impressed by the chemistry knowledge displayed by Into the Night.

Tepid is how I might describe myself.

ITN comes across as a piping hot pot of Chef Boyardee.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

Im a BM wrote:

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

My brain farts immediately when I see -ln or -log.

I run to chatGPT for cover.

1. What the symbols mean
[H⁺] = the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution
(measured in moles per liter, mol/L)
ln = the natural logarithm (log base e ≈ 2.718)
pH = −ln[H⁺]
means:
Take the natural log of the hydrogen ion concentration, then flip the sign.
Note: In most chemistry textbooks, pH is defined as
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺], not −ln[H⁺].
Using ln instead of log₁₀ is a different (but related) scale.

2. Why the minus sign?
Hydrogen ion concentrations are usually very small numbers:
0.01 = 10⁻²
0.000001 = 10⁻⁶
Logs of numbers less than 1 are negative, so the minus sign makes pH a positive, convenient number.
Example (using log₁₀):
If [H⁺] = 10⁻⁷
→ pH = −log₁₀(10⁻⁷) = 7

3. What the logarithm does physically
The logarithm compresses a huge range of hydrogen ion concentrations into a small, manageable scale.
Each 1-unit change in pH means:
a 10× change in acidity (log₁₀ version)
or an e× change if using ln
So:
pH 6 is 10× more acidic than pH 7
pH 5 is 100× more acidic than pH 7
This reflects real chemical energy differences, not just a labeling trick.

4. Why use pH instead of [H⁺] directly?
Because:
[H⁺] ranges from about 1 M to 10⁻¹⁴ M
pH compresses that into roughly 0–14
It aligns better with reaction rates, equilibrium, and biological sensitivity.
Small pH changes can have huge chemical effects (especially in biology).
5. ln vs log₁₀ (important distinction)
If you see:
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺] → standard chemistry definition
pH = −ln[H⁺] → alternative mathematical form
They are related by:
−ln[H+] = 2.303 × pH (base-10)

So the physics/chemistry meaning is the same; only the scale factor differs.

Bottom line
pH = −ln[H⁺] means:
Acidity is measured by the logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration, with higher pH meaning fewer H⁺ ions, and lower pH meaning more H⁺ ions.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

I suspect he knows how to cook...

Still have no clue what pH means, do you?


This seems like faint praise - a tepid endorsement at best.

I can't say I've read anything by the guy to suggest cooking skills or not.

You, Spongy Iris, have seen the HUNDREDS of times he insists that the published, PhD biogeochemist is NOT a "chemist" or even a scientist. Indeed, you've seen how many hundred times he repeats the sentence, "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry".

If you were impressed by his presentation of chemistry knowledge...

Of course, you were not.

NOBODY is impressed by the chemistry knowledge displayed by Into the Night.

Tepid is how I might describe myself.

ITN comes across as a piping hot pot of Chef Boyardee.

He seems lost without IBdaMann.

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

My brain farts immediately when I see -ln or -log.

I run to chatGPT for cover.

1. What the symbols mean
[H⁺] = the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution
(measured in moles per liter, mol/L)
ln = the natural logarithm (log base e ≈ 2.718)
pH = −ln[H⁺]
means:
Take the natural log of the hydrogen ion concentration, then flip the sign.
Note: In most chemistry textbooks, pH is defined as
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺], not −ln[H⁺].
Using ln instead of log₁₀ is a different (but related) scale.

2. Why the minus sign?
Hydrogen ion concentrations are usually very small numbers:
0.01 = 10⁻²
0.000001 = 10⁻⁶
Logs of numbers less than 1 are negative, so the minus sign makes pH a positive, convenient number.
Example (using log₁₀):
If [H⁺] = 10⁻⁷
→ pH = −log₁₀(10⁻⁷) = 7

3. What the logarithm does physically
The logarithm compresses a huge range of hydrogen ion concentrations into a small, manageable scale.
Each 1-unit change in pH means:
a 10× change in acidity (log₁₀ version)
or an e× change if using ln
So:
pH 6 is 10× more acidic than pH 7
pH 5 is 100× more acidic than pH 7
This reflects real chemical energy differences, not just a labeling trick.

4. Why use pH instead of [H⁺] directly?
Because:
[H⁺] ranges from about 1 M to 10⁻¹⁴ M
pH compresses that into roughly 0–14
It aligns better with reaction rates, equilibrium, and biological sensitivity.
Small pH changes can have huge chemical effects (especially in biology).
5. ln vs log₁₀ (important distinction)
If you see:
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺] → standard chemistry definition
pH = −ln[H⁺] → alternative mathematical form
They are related by:
−ln[H+] = 2.303 × pH (base-10)

So the physics/chemistry meaning is the same; only the scale factor differs.

Bottom line
pH = −ln[H⁺] means:
Acidity is measured by the logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration, with higher pH meaning fewer H⁺ ions, and lower pH meaning more H⁺ ions.

This is AWESOME, Spongy Iris!

There is only one technical point I would correct, and it is MATH, not chemistry.

In math, the term "p" stands for the negative logarithm, base 10.

Math is pretty strict about it. "p" does NOT stand for negative natural log. EVER. It is not an "alternative" definition of "pH". "p" can only use base 10 logarithm.

There IS no math symbol for the negative natural log. They just say -ln(X).

"pH" is strictly for the base 10 logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

My brain farts immediately when I see -ln or -log.

I run to chatGPT for cover.

1. What the symbols mean
[H⁺] = the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution
(measured in moles per liter, mol/L)
ln = the natural logarithm (log base e ≈ 2.718)
pH = −ln[H⁺]
means:
Take the natural log of the hydrogen ion concentration, then flip the sign.
Note: In most chemistry textbooks, pH is defined as
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺], not −ln[H⁺].
Using ln instead of log₁₀ is a different (but related) scale.

2. Why the minus sign?
Hydrogen ion concentrations are usually very small numbers:
0.01 = 10⁻²
0.000001 = 10⁻⁶
Logs of numbers less than 1 are negative, so the minus sign makes pH a positive, convenient number.
Example (using log₁₀):
If [H⁺] = 10⁻⁷
→ pH = −log₁₀(10⁻⁷) = 7

3. What the logarithm does physically
The logarithm compresses a huge range of hydrogen ion concentrations into a small, manageable scale.
Each 1-unit change in pH means:
a 10× change in acidity (log₁₀ version)
or an e× change if using ln
So:
pH 6 is 10× more acidic than pH 7
pH 5 is 100× more acidic than pH 7
This reflects real chemical energy differences, not just a labeling trick.

4. Why use pH instead of [H⁺] directly?
Because:
[H⁺] ranges from about 1 M to 10⁻¹⁴ M
pH compresses that into roughly 0–14
It aligns better with reaction rates, equilibrium, and biological sensitivity.
Small pH changes can have huge chemical effects (especially in biology).
5. ln vs log₁₀ (important distinction)
If you see:
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺] → standard chemistry definition
pH = −ln[H⁺] → alternative mathematical form
They are related by:
−ln[H+] = 2.303 × pH (base-10)

So the physics/chemistry meaning is the same; only the scale factor differs.

Bottom line
pH = −ln[H⁺] means:
Acidity is measured by the logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration, with higher pH meaning fewer H⁺ ions, and lower pH meaning more H⁺ ions.

This is AWESOME, Spongy Iris!

There is only one technical point I would correct, and it is MATH, not chemistry.

In math, the term "p" stands for the negative logarithm, base 10.

Math is pretty strict about it. "p" does NOT stand for negative natural log. EVER. It is not an "alternative" definition of "pH". "p" can only use base 10 logarithm.

There IS no math symbol for the negative natural log. They just say -ln(X).

"pH" is strictly for the base 10 logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity.

It sounds way more confusing to figure pH = -ln[H+]

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

My brain farts immediately when I see -ln or -log.

I run to chatGPT for cover.

1. What the symbols mean
[H⁺] = the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution
(measured in moles per liter, mol/L)
ln = the natural logarithm (log base e ≈ 2.718)
pH = −ln[H⁺]
means:
Take the natural log of the hydrogen ion concentration, then flip the sign.
Note: In most chemistry textbooks, pH is defined as
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺], not −ln[H⁺].
Using ln instead of log₁₀ is a different (but related) scale.

2. Why the minus sign?
Hydrogen ion concentrations are usually very small numbers:
0.01 = 10⁻²
0.000001 = 10⁻⁶
Logs of numbers less than 1 are negative, so the minus sign makes pH a positive, convenient number.
Example (using log₁₀):
If [H⁺] = 10⁻⁷
→ pH = −log₁₀(10⁻⁷) = 7

3. What the logarithm does physically
The logarithm compresses a huge range of hydrogen ion concentrations into a small, manageable scale.
Each 1-unit change in pH means:
a 10× change in acidity (log₁₀ version)
or an e× change if using ln
So:
pH 6 is 10× more acidic than pH 7
pH 5 is 100× more acidic than pH 7
This reflects real chemical energy differences, not just a labeling trick.

4. Why use pH instead of [H⁺] directly?
Because:
[H⁺] ranges from about 1 M to 10⁻¹⁴ M
pH compresses that into roughly 0–14
It aligns better with reaction rates, equilibrium, and biological sensitivity.
Small pH changes can have huge chemical effects (especially in biology).
5. ln vs log₁₀ (important distinction)
If you see:
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺] → standard chemistry definition
pH = −ln[H⁺] → alternative mathematical form
They are related by:
−ln[H+] = 2.303 × pH (base-10)

So the physics/chemistry meaning is the same; only the scale factor differs.

Bottom line
pH = −ln[H⁺] means:
Acidity is measured by the logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration, with higher pH meaning fewer H⁺ ions, and lower pH meaning more H⁺ ions.

This is AWESOME, Spongy Iris!

There is only one technical point I would correct, and it is MATH, not chemistry.

In math, the term "p" stands for the negative logarithm, base 10.

Math is pretty strict about it. "p" does NOT stand for negative natural log. EVER. It is not an "alternative" definition of "pH". "p" can only use base 10 logarithm.

There IS no math symbol for the negative natural log. They just say -ln(X).

"pH" is strictly for the base 10 logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity.

It sounds way more confusing to figure pH = -ln[H+]

Not just more confusing, totally pointless.

There would be no application of chemistry that works better for calculations (equilibra, dissociation constants, etc) using -ln(H+) rather than pH. You would just get a wierder looking scale. Instead of needing to cover the range from about -1 to 15, it would be from -3 to about 50.

And I see that -ln(H+) is presented as an ALTERNATIVE MATH FORM, and not an "alternative definition" for pH.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

My brain farts immediately when I see -ln or -log.

I run to chatGPT for cover.

1. What the symbols mean
[H⁺] = the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution
(measured in moles per liter, mol/L)
ln = the natural logarithm (log base e ≈ 2.718)
pH = −ln[H⁺]
means:
Take the natural log of the hydrogen ion concentration, then flip the sign.
Note: In most chemistry textbooks, pH is defined as
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺], not −ln[H⁺].
Using ln instead of log₁₀ is a different (but related) scale.

2. Why the minus sign?
Hydrogen ion concentrations are usually very small numbers:
0.01 = 10⁻²
0.000001 = 10⁻⁶
Logs of numbers less than 1 are negative, so the minus sign makes pH a positive, convenient number.
Example (using log₁₀):
If [H⁺] = 10⁻⁷
→ pH = −log₁₀(10⁻⁷) = 7

3. What the logarithm does physically
The logarithm compresses a huge range of hydrogen ion concentrations into a small, manageable scale.
Each 1-unit change in pH means:
a 10× change in acidity (log₁₀ version)
or an e× change if using ln
So:
pH 6 is 10× more acidic than pH 7
pH 5 is 100× more acidic than pH 7
This reflects real chemical energy differences, not just a labeling trick.

4. Why use pH instead of [H⁺] directly?
Because:
[H⁺] ranges from about 1 M to 10⁻¹⁴ M
pH compresses that into roughly 0–14
It aligns better with reaction rates, equilibrium, and biological sensitivity.
Small pH changes can have huge chemical effects (especially in biology).
5. ln vs log₁₀ (important distinction)
If you see:
pH = −log₁₀[H⁺] → standard chemistry definition
pH = −ln[H⁺] → alternative mathematical form
They are related by:
−ln[H+] = 2.303 × pH (base-10)

So the physics/chemistry meaning is the same; only the scale factor differs.

Bottom line
pH = −ln[H⁺] means:
Acidity is measured by the logarithm of hydrogen ion concentration, with higher pH meaning fewer H⁺ ions, and lower pH meaning more H⁺ ions.

This is AWESOME, Spongy Iris!

There is only one technical point I would correct, and it is MATH, not chemistry.

In math, the term "p" stands for the negative logarithm, base 10.

Math is pretty strict about it. "p" does NOT stand for negative natural log. EVER. It is not an "alternative" definition of "pH". "p" can only use base 10 logarithm.

There IS no math symbol for the negative natural log. They just say -ln(X).

"pH" is strictly for the base 10 logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity.

It sounds way more confusing to figure pH = -ln[H+]

Not just more confusing, totally pointless.

There would be no application of chemistry that works better for calculations (equilibra, dissociation constants, etc) using -ln(H+) rather than pH. You would just get a wierder looking scale. Instead of needing to cover the range from about -1 to 15, it would be from -3 to about 50.

And I see that -ln(H+) is presented as an ALTERNATIVE MATH FORM, and not an "alternative definition" for pH.

Still pretending you know what pH is...*yawn*.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted spam...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

It was hard not to notice this ringing endorsement of ITN's credentials.

Didn't he, like, invent some new chemical material or something?

Neither of you guys can name ONE published scientific journal that you respect as scientifically credible. Not ONE.

You both agree that Nature, which MY shit got published in, is a "shit rag".

You guys both agree that Biogeochemistry, where my shit also got published, is named with a meaningless buzzword, because you both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

And you both agree that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" who is NOT a chemist.

And you both think you understand science in some meaningful way.

And you both lie a lot. You lie a whole lot.

Have fun insulting somebody!

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

It was hard not to notice this ringing endorsement of ITN's credentials.

Didn't he, like, invent some new chemical material or something?

Neither of you guys can name ONE published scientific journal that you respect as scientifically credible. Not ONE.

You both agree that Nature, which MY shit got published in, is a "shit rag".

You guys both agree that Biogeochemistry, where my shit also got published, is named with a meaningless buzzword, because you both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

And you both agree that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" who is NOT a chemist.

And you both think you understand science in some meaningful way.

And you both lie a lot. You lie a whole lot.

Have fun insulting somebody!

Meth is a chemical

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

It was hard not to notice this ringing endorsement of ITN's credentials.

Didn't he, like, invent some new chemical material or something?

Neither of you guys can name ONE published scientific journal that you respect as scientifically credible. Not ONE.

You both agree that Nature, which MY shit got published in, is a "shit rag".

You guys both agree that Biogeochemistry, where my shit also got published, is named with a meaningless buzzword, because you both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

And you both agree that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" who is NOT a chemist.

And you both think you understand science in some meaningful way.

And you both lie a lot. You lie a whole lot.

Have fun insulting somebody!

Meth is a chemical

Gold molecules are amphibians.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

It was hard not to notice this ringing endorsement of ITN's credentials.

Didn't he, like, invent some new chemical material or something?

Neither of you guys can name ONE published scientific journal that you respect as scientifically credible. Not ONE.

You both agree that Nature, which MY shit got published in, is a "shit rag".

You guys both agree that Biogeochemistry, where my shit also got published, is named with a meaningless buzzword, because you both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

And you both agree that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" who is NOT a chemist.

And you both think you understand science in some meaningful way.

And you both lie a lot. You lie a whole lot.

Have fun insulting somebody!

Meth is a chemical

Gold molecules are amphibians.

Amphibians are combinations of chemicals

Im a BM wrote:
It was hard not to notice this ringing endorsement of ITN's credentials.

Im a BM wrote:
Didn't he, like, invent some new chemical material or something?

Neither of you guys can name ONE published scientific journal that you respect as scientifically credible. Not ONE.

Im a BM wrote:
You both agree that Nature, which MY shit got published in, is a "shit rag".

Im a BM wrote:
You guys both agree that Biogeochemistry, where my shit also got published, is named with a meaningless buzzword, because you both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Im a BM wrote:
And you both agree that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" who is NOT a chemist.

Im a BM wrote:
And you both think you understand science in some meaningful way.

Im a BM wrote:
And you both lie a lot. You lie a whole lot.

Have fun insulting somebody!

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

This should be too easy. What is required to be a chemist? Would you care to give a definition?

It was hard not to notice this ringing endorsement of ITN's credentials.

Didn't he, like, invent some new chemical material or something?

Neither of you guys can name ONE published scientific journal that you respect as scientifically credible. Not ONE.

You both agree that Nature, which MY shit got published in, is a "shit rag".

You guys both agree that Biogeochemistry, where my shit also got published, is named with a meaningless buzzword, because you both agree that "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

And you both agree that I am a "scientifically illiterate moron" who is NOT a chemist.

And you both think you understand science in some meaningful way.

And you both lie a lot. You lie a whole lot.

Have fun insulting somebody!

Meth is a chemical

Gold molecules are amphibians.

Amphibians are combinations of chemicals

Science is not a chemical.

You deny science.

Im a BM wrote:
Once IBdaMann posted "pH = -ln[H+]"

I then posted "pH = -log[H+]"

Into the Night told us we were BOTH WRONG.

Nope. pH is some kind of mystery "ratio" that need only be called "RQAA" for a complete explanation.

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

My brain farts are so productive and successful, it took me about 20 seconds of banging on some wind chimes before I triggered my woodpecker tinnitus trauma.

I almost thought I was cured, but no!

Maybe next week, I will actually use a timer, and try for 30 seconds of wind chime noisy nausea, to see if any better...

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

My brain farts are so productive and successful, it took me about 20 seconds of banging on some wind chimes before I triggered my woodpecker tinnitus trauma.

I almost thought I was cured, but no!

Maybe next week, I will actually use a timer, and try for 30 seconds of wind chime noisy nausea, to see if any better...

Sounds like two more glowing recommendations and solid endorsements for the credibility of Into the Night as a "chemist".

Yes, his fans have come to defend him and tell me why I am wrong to assert that when it comes to chemistry, "Nothing" the Chemistry Clown (aka ITN) is NOT...

And I'll use the phrase IBdaMann loves so much.

So, you guys are saying that Into the Night is NOT a "scientifically illiterate moron"?

If that is your assertion, I respectfully (tee hee hee) disagree.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, we know that pH is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity.

Im a BM wrote:
But there is a caveat on "molarity". Chemical ACTIVITY is not always the same as concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
pH is the negative log of hydrogen ion CHEMICAL ACTIVITY. In most cases the activity coefficient is 1, so this is also the same value as hydrogen ion CONCENTRATION, moles per liter.

Im a BM wrote:
pH is a master variable that influences or reflects many parameters.

Im a BM wrote:
pH is controls the chemical activity of dissolved metals, for example.

Im a BM wrote:
It is possible to predict equilibrium chemical activity of aluminum, for example, by knowing the pH.

Im a BM wrote:
For an inorganic salt such as aluminum chloride, this means you can predict its concentration knowing only pH.

Im a BM wrote:
When aluminum ions get complexed by organic ligands, it reduces their chemical activity. Each aluminum ion has less chemical activity than before.

Im a BM wrote:
A lot more of them can be in solution at the same pH. A saturated solution of aluminum chloride at pH 5 has the same aluminum chemical activity as a saturated solution of aluminum citrate at pH 5.

Im a BM wrote:
Same chemical activity, but NOT the same concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
The total amount of aluminum in the pH 5 solution is much much greater for aluminum citrate than for aluminum chloride.

Im a BM wrote:
Sounds like two more glowing recommendations and solid endorsements for the credibility of Into the Night as a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Yes, his fans have come to defend him and tell me why I am wrong to assert that when it comes to chemistry, "Nothing" the Chemistry Clown (aka ITN) is NOT...

Im a BM wrote:
And I'll use the phrase IBdaMann loves so much.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Well, we know that pH is the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion molarity.

Nope. Try again.

Im a BM wrote:
But there is a caveat on "molarity". Chemical ACTIVITY is not always the same as concentration.

Chemical activity? You think some chemicals just laze too much on the couch and watch TV?

Im a BM wrote:
pH is the negative log of hydrogen ion CHEMICAL ACTIVITY. In most cases the activity coefficient is 1, so this is also the same value as hydrogen ion CONCENTRATION, moles per liter.

Go learn what pH means.

Im a BM wrote:
pH is a master variable that influences or reflects many parameters.

pH is not a variable.

Im a BM wrote:
pH is controls the chemical activity of dissolved metals, for example.

pH does not control anything.

Im a BM wrote:
It is possible to predict equilibrium chemical activity of aluminum, for example, by knowing the pH.

There's that 'chemical activity' again. Maybe you think acid is a health club.

Im a BM wrote:
For an inorganic salt such as aluminum chloride, this means you can predict its concentration knowing only pH.

pH is not a measure of concentration.

Im a BM wrote:
When aluminum ions get complexed by organic ligands, it reduces their chemical activity. Each aluminum ion has less chemical activity than before.

So this makes aluminum watch too much TV again, right?

Im a BM wrote:
A lot more of them can be in solution at the same pH. A saturated solution of aluminum chloride at pH 5 has the same aluminum chemical activity as a saturated solution of aluminum citrate at pH 5.

A saturated solution of aluminum chloride has a pH of approximately 2.8,
A saturated solution of aluminum citrate goes alkaline, with a pH approaching 9.

Im a BM wrote:
Same chemical activity, but NOT the same concentration.

Chemical don't watch TV or join health clubs.

Im a BM wrote:
The total amount of aluminum in the pH 5 solution is much much greater for aluminum citrate than for aluminum chloride.

Argument from randU fallacy. Go learn what pH is.

Im a BM wrote:
People who really ARE "chemists" know what "chemical activity" is.

Im a BM wrote:
So does GOOGLE!

Ask Google: "What is the difference between the 'concentration' of a chemical in solution, compared to its 'chemical activity'?"
GOOGLE knows the answer even if ITN does not.

Im a BM wrote:
Google says: "Concentration is the measured amount of a substance (solute) in a solution while activity is its effective concentration. ..In dilute, ideal solutions, concentration and activity are nearly equal, but in concentrated or ionic solutions, activity (calculated by multiplying concentration by an activity coefficient) becomes significantly lower due to ions interacting with each other and the solvent, making it a more accurate measure for thermodynamic calculations like equilibrium constants."

Im a BM wrote:
Once again, Into the Night PROVES that he is NOT a CHEMIST!

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

My brain farts are so productive and successful, it took me about 20 seconds of banging on some wind chimes before I triggered my woodpecker tinnitus trauma.

I almost thought I was cured, but no!

Maybe next week, I will actually use a timer, and try for 30 seconds of wind chime noisy nausea, to see if any better...

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night continues to insist that he is a "chemist".

Does ANYONE believe him?

I know for a fact that he is NOT a chemist, or even competent to pass an introductory course in chemistry.

This is an opportunity for his supporters to tell me why I'm wrong.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

My brain farts are so productive and successful, it took me about 20 seconds of banging on some wind chimes before I triggered my woodpecker tinnitus trauma.

I almost thought I was cured, but no!

Maybe next week, I will actually use a timer, and try for 30 seconds of wind chime noisy nausea, to see if any better...

That is a brain fart whistling in the space between your ears

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

My brain farts are so productive and successful, it took me about 20 seconds of banging on some wind chimes before I triggered my woodpecker tinnitus trauma.

I almost thought I was cured, but no!

Maybe next week, I will actually use a timer, and try for 30 seconds of wind chime noisy nausea, to see if any better...

That is a brain fart whistling in the space between your ears

Anybody can trigger tinnitus briefly by jutting their lower jaw forward.

That kind of jaw motion is awkward, and seems to yank on something around the ear.

Therefore, tinnitus feels more like a choke chain.

Hopefully a few more brain farts can break the chain.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Well at least you know that your brain is farting

My brain farts are so productive and successful, it took me about 20 seconds of banging on some wind chimes before I triggered my woodpecker tinnitus trauma.

I almost thought I was cured, but no!

Maybe next week, I will actually use a timer, and try for 30 seconds of wind chime noisy nausea, to see if any better...

That is a brain fart whistling in the space between your ears

Anybody can trigger tinnitus briefly by jutting their lower jaw forward.

That kind of jaw motion is awkward, and seems to yank on something around the ear.

Therefore, tinnitus feels more like a choke chain.

Hopefully a few more brain farts can break the chain.

Spongy Iris, I have some happy thoughts to share with you.

I believe you deserve part of the credit for a big change taking hold over IBdaMann.

You posted on multiple occasions about the objective reality of how Google searches displayed climate-debate.com in a prominent way for whomever might be doing general searches for climate change discussion sites.

I think that your detective work and objective analysis contributed to IBdaMann's consciousness shifting about climate-debate.com

I think IBdaMann became aware that Google searches were the source of most new members he had ambushed over the years.

My own consciousness about this website shifted dramatically around the new regime of "views" that the threads rack up. I was very doubtful about what it meant at first. After all, this website has been trying to bullshit the Internet for years by claiming 50-300 "guests online" suddenly take interest in the site, many times each day. But I've been keeping some tallies now, threads not just of my own. Even among my own, some pick up far more "views" than others.

I believe that IBdaMann is now aware its not just a tiny pond where it is easy to be the biggest fish. It is an aquarium where the viewers far outnumber the fish.

Spongy Iris, I encourage you to read the very most recent post(s) by IBdaMann.

I am convinced that IBdaMann is now aware his words are going to be viewed by more intelligent observers than the usual crowd from the past.

I think IBdaMann is going to try much harder now to make his argument appear scientifically plausible, and less dependent on accusations of scientific illiteracy.

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I have some happy thoughts to share with you.

I believe you deserve part of the credit for a big change taking hold over IBdaMann.

You posted on multiple occasions about the objective reality of how Google searches displayed climate-debate.com in a prominent way for whomever might be doing general searches for climate change discussion sites.

I think that your detective work and objective analysis contributed to IBdaMann's consciousness shifting about climate-debate.com

I think IBdaMann became aware that Google searches were the source of most new members he had ambushed over the years.

My own consciousness about this website shifted dramatically around the new regime of "views" that the threads rack up. I was very doubtful about what it meant at first. After all, this website has been trying to bullshit the Internet for years by claiming 50-300 "guests online" suddenly take interest in the site, many times each day. But I've been keeping some tallies now, threads not just of my own. Even among my own, some pick up far more "views" than others.

I believe that IBdaMann is now aware its not just a tiny pond where it is easy to be the biggest fish. It is an aquarium where the viewers far outnumber the fish.

Spongy Iris, I encourage you to read the very most recent post(s) by IBdaMann.

I am convinced that IBdaMann is now aware his words are going to be viewed by more intelligent observers than the usual crowd from the past.

I think IBdaMann is going to try much harder now to make his argument appear scientifically plausible, and less dependent on accusations of scientific illiteracy.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris, I have some happy thoughts to share with you.

I believe you deserve part of the credit for a big change taking hold over IBdaMann.

You posted on multiple occasions about the objective reality of how Google searches displayed climate-debate.com in a prominent way for whomever might be doing general searches for climate change discussion sites.

I think that your detective work and objective analysis contributed to IBdaMann's consciousness shifting about climate-debate.com

I think IBdaMann became aware that Google searches were the source of most new members he had ambushed over the years.

My own consciousness about this website shifted dramatically around the new regime of "views" that the threads rack up. I was very doubtful about what it meant at first. After all, this website has been trying to bullshit the Internet for years by claiming 50-300 "guests online" suddenly take interest in the site, many times each day. But I've been keeping some tallies now, threads not just of my own. Even among my own, some pick up far more "views" than others.

I believe that IBdaMann is now aware its not just a tiny pond where it is easy to be the biggest fish. It is an aquarium where the viewers far outnumber the fish.

Spongy Iris, I encourage you to read the very most recent post(s) by IBdaMann.

I am convinced that IBdaMann is now aware his words are going to be viewed by more intelligent observers than the usual crowd from the past.

I think IBdaMann is going to try much harder now to make his argument appear scientifically plausible, and less dependent on accusations of scientific illiteracy.

One of the reasons I enjoy climate-debate.com is there is engagement here. Although the engagement seems to have declined as the views have grown. I don't track the views here closely, but I assume your commentary on the matter is accurate.