IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, gfm7174, "interstitium" definition

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
And THAT'S how you "win" a "debate" about "science".

You deny science.

You still haven't described what is 'changing' in climate.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You think 'science' is a magick paper.
You think 'science' is a magazine.
You think 'science' is a journal.
You think 'science' is a consensus or voting bloc.
You think 'science' is buzzword junk.
You think 'science' is a prize.
You think 'science' is spam.
You think 'science' is a title.
You think 'science' is a sanctification.
You think 'science' is a class or course.
You think 'science' is bacteria.
You think 'science' is climate.

Science is none of these things.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You ignore several of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You have also not yet described what is 'changing' in climate.

"You think 'science' is... You think 'science' is... You think 'science' is... You think 'science' is...You think 'science' is.." and I'm not going to copy all ELEVEN times this meaningless phrase gets repeated.

It reinforces my conviction that Into the Night does not even know what 'science' IS. Literally!

Inversion fallacy.

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

Im a BM wrote:The mental gymnastics required for this level of cognitive dissonance are amazing!

Im a BM wrote: everyone gets to have their own personal definition.

Im a BM wrote:Everyone must define their terms,

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:The mental gymnastics required for this level of cognitive dissonance are amazing!

Too funny! You are about to describe exactly how things are in science.

Im a BM wrote: everyone gets to have their own personal definition.

Exactly, but...

Im a BM wrote:Everyone must define their terms,

Exactly! It's the cost of having your own definitions.

Do you recall how Sir Isaac Newton developed his own notation? Do you recall that Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz did as well? Did you catch that they were allowed to do that? Did you extrapolate that all people are free to create all their own terms ... but that they have to define and explain them?

What? No? You never did? Color me surprised.

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Calling out to IBdaMann, GasGuzzler, and gfm7174!

Into the Night has been left alone to hold down the fort.

The Communist warmazombies are at it again with an ANATOMY hoax.

Remember how important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS?

Into the Night could use your help defining a term in human anatomy.

He seems to think that the "interstitium" is basically just saltwater with some chemicals in it, hanging out somewhere in the space between cells. He swears that the interstitium is definitely NOT an organ, it contains NO tissue, it has NO compartments, NO fibers, No collagen, No elastin..

You might have heard of the interstitium in 2018 when it was discovered/identified. It was a big deal in medical science world.

SOME scientists seem to think it's the largest single organ in the human body. Nobody disputes that it is made of connective tissue, forming a lattice of flexible fibers of collagen and elastin, comprising a network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments.

For a quick dive into it, just Google: "Is the interstitium a network of connective tissue throughout the human body, comprised of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers, of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments?"

Google AI displays a synthesis in the upper left.

That synthesis begins with: "Yes, the interstitium is a widespread, contiguous network of fluid-filled compartments located throughout the body.. made of a lattice of collagen and elastin fibers that holds interstitial fluid.."

Notice the term "interstitial fluid"? THAT is what ITN calls the "interstitium".

Perhaps next week, depending on what gives with our website administrator, "sealover" will set up the dedicated thread for information/discussion of the interstitium.

I really DO want the trolls to come back and ridicule ITN.

I am also testing the waters with a decoy "interstitium" thread (this one) to see how many "views" it racks up, and if ANYONE besides ITN finds it worthy of comment.

We will have a WHOLE LOT to say about the interstitium on a different thread that may be delayed for at least another week.

What if we could get all the trolls back together to revisit this whole "define your terms" thing?

I have been BEGGING Into the Night to actually DEFINE HIS TERMS!

He is a "chemist", as you all know, and as such he frequently uses terms such as "pH", "buffer", "carbohydrate", and "hydrocarbon".

Have any of YOU GUYS ever seen ITN's secret definition for pH?

He swears that the definition of pH is absolutely NOT pH = -log(H+).
He swears that pH is NOT the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion, (H+), molarity in an aqueous solution. He swears that pH can NOT be below zero, even for an acid solution with (H+)>1.0.

The closest he ever came to actually revealing his SECRET definition for pH was to say it was "a ratio". A ratio of what to what, I asked? "RQAA"

RQAA RQAA RQAA every time I ask Into the Night if HE has the slightest clue what pH actually IS.

Did any of you guys catch it when ITN provided his definition for pH?

It must have been a few years back. I missed it.

The same question for "buffer". ITN says "water itself is a buffer for acid".

What the heck does ITN think a "buffer" IS?

He swears that a buffer is NOT a an aqueous solution that is able to resist large changes to pH upon addition of acid because it contains the conjugate base of a weak acid, such as the bicarbonate ion.

He throws around the terms "carbohydrate" and "hydrocarbon", but I have no idea what he thinks they are. He says that vegetable oil is a carbohydrate. He says that terpenes are not hydrocarbons. But he won't share his SECRET definition for what either "carbohydrate" or "hydrocarbon" is.

Aren't we supposed to define our terms in these discussions?

It is rather puzzling how ITN will always respond to your posts, just for the sake of being contrarian.

I'm not sure who is trolling who.

Im a BM wrote: Even IBdaMann has dramatically reduced his posting frequency.