| 21-12-2024 20:25 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Party crashing troll time.
Don't worry, I won't use the "bioge.." word.
What is the difference between Science and Anti Scientific Religious Dogma?
Science acquires evidence which provides the sole basis to reach a conclusion.
Anti scientific religious dogma cherry picks or fabricates evidence to support a pre existing conclusion based solely on faith in religious dogma.
Science excludes conclusions not supported by evidence.
Anti scientific religious dogma excludes evidence not supportive of its faith-based predetermined conclusions.
Climate denial is a WACKY religion that only appeals to the most gullible.
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The characteristics of the atmosphere determine the temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere. I call this the "grill press effect.
Nope. Kinetic energy determines the temperature. Simple as that.
Sorry, throwing a baseball is not a temperature.
Xadoman wrote:
Exhaust gases are not energy or 'energized'. Obviously you ignore chemistry.
Gases contain kinetic energy. You try to create gases without energy.
Mantra 30a. You can't throw a gas.
Xadoman wrote:
CO2 and CO do not 'collapse to the ground'. They are part of the atmosphere.
You are trying to create gases and atmosphere without energy. Circular reasoning fallacy- atmospheric gases are caused by the atmosphere.
Mantra 30a. Fallacy fallacy. Atmospheric gases ARE the atmosphere.
Xadoman wrote:
In real life atmospheric gases rise up against gravity because of the kinetic energy.
Nope. Because of gravity and mass. Go learn what 'density' means.
Xadoman wrote:
This energy comes from the sun, from inner core .
Irrelevance fallacy.
Xadoman wrote:
Want more gases up in the sky, rise the temperature of the earth.
Not possible.
Xadoman wrote:
[quote]Nope. All you need is gravity and mass.
Still trying to create gases without energy.
Mantra 30a. I am not creating anything.
Xadoman wrote:
There is no sequence.
Burning one 1kg of coal was like throwing a ball up in the sky once. It comes down and stays on the ground. To keep the ball up in the sky constant raw energy is needed to keep throwing it up into the sky.
Non-sequitur fallacy. Burning coal is not like throwing a ball.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. Just gravity and mass.
Burning fuel rises the temperature of the earth a little bit. It is an additional energy.
Burning fuel does not raise the temperature of Earth.
Xadoman wrote:
What 'warming'???
It is an additional energy. Hot spots in big cities are caused by this effect. Simple physic nothing more.
What 'hot spots'???
Xadoman wrote:
Fallacy fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy fallacy
Denial of logic. Mockery.
Xadoman wrote:
Mantra 30a. Stop putting words in people's mouths.
Here is the exact quote again:
When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does
His words, not mine.
And he is correct.
I have already described why. You completely ignored it. |
| 21-12-2024 23:29 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
Party crashing troll time.
Don't worry, I won't use the "bioge.." word.
What is the difference between Science and Anti Scientific Religious Dogma?
One is science, the other is a religion. Duh.
Im a BM wrote:
Science acquires evidence which provides the sole basis to reach a conclusion.
Science is not 'data' or 'evidence' or 'conclusion'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Im a BM wrote:
Anti scientific religious dogma cherry picks or fabricates evidence to support a pre existing conclusion based solely on faith in religious dogma.
Most every religion uses supporting evidence. Science does NOT use supporting evidence.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Science excludes conclusions not supported by evidence.
Science does not use supporting evidence.
Im a BM wrote:
Anti scientific religious dogma excludes evidence not supportive of its faith-based predetermined conclusions.
You have it backwards. Religion uses supporting evidence. Science does not.
Im a BM wrote:
Climate denial is a WACKY religion that only appeals to the most gullible.
Who is denying climate???
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 |
| 22-12-2024 04:04 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
I have been unable to locate the chemistry textbook that corroborates your most unique assertion that:
"pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night
All the chemistry textbooks, papers, etc. that I have ever seen, and that is a LOT of them, make the claim that:
pH = -log[H+] negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion chemical activity (Molarity or Normality, moles or equivalents per liter)
If that is true than the pH of a 1.0 N solution of strong acid HAS to be ZERO.
Furthermore, that means that ANY strong acid solution which has GREATER than 1.0 N [H+], the pH HAS TO BE LESS THAN ZERO.
Unless it is not physically/chemically possible for a solution to have [H+] activity at 1.0 N or anything higher, pH CAN be less than or equal to zero.
I could refer you to all kinds of credible sources
But just tell me even ONE credible source that corroborates your assertion.
The concept of pH is FUNDAMENTAL in chemistry, learned in the first introductory course by anyone who credibly claims to be a chemist.
I'm guessing that I'll be referred to the newest edition of INTRODUCTORY PARACHEMISTRY, edited by "RQAA" and published by "Stop spamming".
Because the infallible and omniscient one asserts it to be so, "pH cannot be equal to or less than zero", no matter what the fake science textbooks say.
Don't worry. This does not depend on whether or not there is such a thing as "bioge..." or any other meaningless buzzword.
It is simply a chance to tell us more than just "RQAA" about what pH REALLY IS, and the credible published source that does not explicitly REFUTE Into the Night's lone-wolf claim that pH cannot be equal to or less than zero.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Party crashing troll time.
Don't worry, I won't use the "bioge.." word.
What is the difference between Science and Anti Scientific Religious Dogma?
One is science, the other is a religion. Duh.
Im a BM wrote:
Science acquires evidence which provides the sole basis to reach a conclusion.
Science is not 'data' or 'evidence' or 'conclusion'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Im a BM wrote:
Anti scientific religious dogma cherry picks or fabricates evidence to support a pre existing conclusion based solely on faith in religious dogma.
Most every religion uses supporting evidence. Science does NOT use supporting evidence.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Science excludes conclusions not supported by evidence.
Science does not use supporting evidence.
Im a BM wrote:
Anti scientific religious dogma excludes evidence not supportive of its faith-based predetermined conclusions.
You have it backwards. Religion uses supporting evidence. Science does not.
Im a BM wrote:
Climate denial is a WACKY religion that only appeals to the most gullible.
Who is denying climate??? |
| 22-12-2024 22:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
I have been unable to locate the chemistry textbook that corroborates your most unique assertion that:
"pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night
Chemistry is not a textbook. Science is not a book, paper, website, pamphlet, or Holy Link.
Im a BM wrote:
All the chemistry textbooks, papers, etc. that I have ever seen, and that is a LOT of them,
Science is not a book, paper, website, pamphlet, or Holy Link.
Im a BM wrote:
If that is true than the pH of a 1.0 N solution of strong acid HAS to be ZERO.
WRONG. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, that means that ANY strong acid solution which has GREATER than 1.0 N [H+], the pH HAS TO BE LESS THAN ZERO.
WRONG. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
Unless it is not physically/chemically possible for a solution to have [H+] activity at 1.0 N or anything higher, pH CAN be less than or equal to zero.
WRONG. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
I could refer you to all kinds of credible sources
But just tell me even ONE credible source that corroborates your assertion.
You don't get to dictate what is 'credible'. You are not the king. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The concept of pH is FUNDAMENTAL in chemistry,
Nah. Just acid/base chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
learned in the first introductory course by anyone who credibly claims to be a chemist.
Chemistry is not a college or university.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm guessing that I'll be referred to the newest edition of INTRODUCTORY PARACHEMISTRY, edited by "RQAA" and published by "Stop spamming".
Stop whining.
Im a BM wrote:
Because the infallible and omniscient one asserts it to be so, "pH cannot be equal to or less than zero", no matter what the fake science textbooks say.
You don't get quote every book. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't worry. This does not depend on whether or not there is such a thing as "bioge..." or any other meaningless buzzword.
Correct.
Im a BM wrote:
It is simply a chance to tell us more than just "RQAA" about what pH REALLY IS, and the credible published source that does not explicitly REFUTE Into the Night's lone-wolf claim that pH cannot be equal to or less than zero.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
I already know that you don't know what pH is or how it's calculated. You don't have to keep proving it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 22-12-2024 22:06 |
| 22-12-2024 22:19 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Don't deny your own posts, especially since you repeat the same sentence so many times.
"Water itself is a buffer for acid". "Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." and multiple variations of the same assertion.
Perhaps you can explain, for the FIRST TIME, the chemical principles/mechanisms that make "water itself", an "excellent pH buffer".
To do so, you will perhaps explain, for the FIRST TIME, what you believe the term "pH" even means.
THAT might clarify why you refuse to allow a 1.0 N solution of hydrochloric acid to have pH = 0, as so many gullible morons seem to believe it would.
You didn't need no stinkin' textbooks to learn REAL chemistry, did you?
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I have been unable to locate the chemistry textbook that corroborates your most unique assertion that:
"pH cannot be equal to or less than zero." - Into the Night
Chemistry is not a textbook. Science is not a book, paper, website, pamphlet, or Holy Link.
Im a BM wrote:
All the chemistry textbooks, papers, etc. that I have ever seen, and that is a LOT of them,
Science is not a book, paper, website, pamphlet, or Holy Link.
Im a BM wrote:
If that is true than the pH of a 1.0 N solution of strong acid HAS to be ZERO.
WRONG. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
Furthermore, that means that ANY strong acid solution which has GREATER than 1.0 N [H+], the pH HAS TO BE LESS THAN ZERO.
WRONG. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
Unless it is not physically/chemically possible for a solution to have [H+] activity at 1.0 N or anything higher, pH CAN be less than or equal to zero.
WRONG. Math error.
Im a BM wrote:
I could refer you to all kinds of credible sources
But just tell me even ONE credible source that corroborates your assertion.
You don't get to dictate what is 'credible'. You are not the king. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The concept of pH is FUNDAMENTAL in chemistry,
Nah. Just acid/base chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
learned in the first introductory course by anyone who credibly claims to be a chemist.
Chemistry is not a college or university.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm guessing that I'll be referred to the newest edition of INTRODUCTORY PARACHEMISTRY, edited by "RQAA" and published by "Stop spamming".
Stop whining.
Im a BM wrote:
Because the infallible and omniscient one asserts it to be so, "pH cannot be equal to or less than zero", no matter what the fake science textbooks say.
You don't get quote every book. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Don't worry. This does not depend on whether or not there is such a thing as "bioge..." or any other meaningless buzzword.
Correct.
Im a BM wrote:
It is simply a chance to tell us more than just "RQAA" about what pH REALLY IS, and the credible published source that does not explicitly REFUTE Into the Night's lone-wolf claim that pH cannot be equal to or less than zero.
You don't get to quote everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
I already know that you don't know what pH is or how it's calculated. You don't have to keep proving it. |
| 23-12-2024 17:07 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14932) |
Im a BM wrote:
"Water itself is a buffer for acid". "Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." and multiple variations of the same assertion.
Perhaps you can explain, for the FIRST TIME, the chemical principles/mechanisms that make "water itself", an "excellent pH buffer".
Maybe you can explain for the FIRST TIME why you EVADE the definition of "buffering," which does not have a dilution exclusion. May I remind you that the scientific consensus is that the ocean has a lot of water? |
| 23-12-2024 18:18 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"Water itself is a buffer for acid". "Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." and multiple variations of the same assertion.
Perhaps you can explain, for the FIRST TIME, the chemical principles/mechanisms that make "water itself", an "excellent pH buffer".
Maybe you can explain for the FIRST TIME why you EVADE the definition of "buffering," which does not have a dilution exclusion. May I remind you that the scientific consensus is that the ocean has a lot of water?
Yes, why do I EVADE the definition of buffering?
I could do this Parrot style, and list everything that buffering is NOT.
Buffering is NOT dilution. Actually excluded by definition.
That is a long enough list now for everything that buffering is NOT.
So, what the heck IS buffering?
People who know how to look up definitions have a lot of choices for the precise wording they like best, but they all essentially are definitions of the same thing.
A buffer is a substance DISSOLVED IN WATER which prevents large variations in pH upon addition of acid or base.
In sea water, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide the overwhelming majority of that capacity to resist pH change upon addition of acid. Even though these ions are not technically "chemicals" (such as sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate) they are major players in sea water chemistry.
That is why the impact of a drop of acid is so much "more pronounced", you know, when comparing sea water to pure water.
And if you knew ANYTHING about this stuff, you would have noticed your own mistakes in claiming... for example, that pH is the negative NATURAL LOG of [H+], and that even though your program showed a negative pH, you were incapable of seeing that this number was below zero (i.e. a "magical" acid)
You are too scientifically illiterate to have any discussion of value with, but you drove away all the scientists before I got here. |
| 23-12-2024 23:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"Water itself is a buffer for acid". "Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." and multiple variations of the same assertion.
Perhaps you can explain, for the FIRST TIME, the chemical principles/mechanisms that make "water itself", an "excellent pH buffer".
Maybe you can explain for the FIRST TIME why you EVADE the definition of "buffering," which does not have a dilution exclusion. May I remind you that the scientific consensus is that the ocean has a lot of water?
Yes, why do I EVADE the definition of buffering?
Because you don't know what it is.
Im a BM wrote:
I could do this Parrot style, and list everything that buffering is NOT.
Buffering is NOT dilution. Actually excluded by definition.
Dilution is absolute a form of buffering.
Im a BM wrote:
That is a long enough list now for everything that buffering is NOT.
So, what the heck IS buffering?
RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
People who know how to look up definitions have a lot of choices for the precise wording they like best, but they all essentially are definitions of the same thing.
Your buzzword and word games won't help you at all, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
A buffer is a substance DISSOLVED IN WATER which prevents large variations in pH upon addition of acid or base.
Water dissolves in water. A buffer doesn't pH changing.
Im a BM wrote:
In sea water, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide the overwhelming majority of that capacity to resist pH change upon addition of acid.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You can't resist pH change with buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Even though these ions are not technically "chemicals" (such as sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate) they are major players in sea water chemistry.
Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. You deny and ignore chemistry. Buzzwords are not chemistry.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
That is why the impact of a drop of acid is so much "more pronounced", you know, when comparing sea water to pure water.
RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating questions that have already been answered.
Im a BM wrote:
And if you knew ANYTHING about this stuff, you would have noticed your own mistakes in claiming... for example, that pH is the negative NATURAL LOG of [H+], and that even though your program showed a negative pH, you were incapable of seeing that this number was below zero (i.e. a "magical" acid)
pH is NOT the negative natural log of protons. You still don't know what pH is.
Im a BM wrote:
You are too scientifically illiterate to have any discussion of value with, but you drove away all the scientists before I got here.
WRONG. You are whining to several scientists that are already here.
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 |
| 24-12-2024 01:00 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
"Water itself is a buffer for acid". "Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." and multiple variations of the same assertion.
Perhaps you can explain, for the FIRST TIME, the chemical principles/mechanisms that make "water itself", an "excellent pH buffer".
Maybe you can explain for the FIRST TIME why you EVADE the definition of "buffering," which does not have a dilution exclusion. May I remind you that the scientific consensus is that the ocean has a lot of water?
Yes, why do I EVADE the definition of buffering?
Because you don't know what it is.
Im a BM wrote:
I could do this Parrot style, and list everything that buffering is NOT.
Buffering is NOT dilution. Actually excluded by definition.
Dilution is absolute a form of buffering.
Im a BM wrote:
That is a long enough list now for everything that buffering is NOT.
So, what the heck IS buffering?
RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
People who know how to look up definitions have a lot of choices for the precise wording they like best, but they all essentially are definitions of the same thing.
Your buzzword and word games won't help you at all, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
A buffer is a substance DISSOLVED IN WATER which prevents large variations in pH upon addition of acid or base.
Water dissolves in water. A buffer doesn't pH changing.
Im a BM wrote:
In sea water, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide the overwhelming majority of that capacity to resist pH change upon addition of acid.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You can't resist pH change with buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Even though these ions are not technically "chemicals" (such as sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate) they are major players in sea water chemistry.
Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. You deny and ignore chemistry. Buzzwords are not chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
That is why the impact of a drop of acid is so much "more pronounced", you know, when comparing sea water to pure water.
RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating questions that have already been answered.
Im a BM wrote:
And if you knew ANYTHING about this stuff, you would have noticed your own mistakes in claiming... for example, that pH is the negative NATURAL LOG of [H+], and that even though your program showed a negative pH, you were incapable of seeing that this number was below zero (i.e. a "magical" acid)
pH is NOT the negative natural log of protons. You still don't know what pH is.
Im a BM wrote:
You are too scientifically illiterate to have any discussion of value with, but you drove away all the scientists before I got here.
WRONG. You are whining to several scientists that are already here.
"pH is NOT the negative natural log of protons. You still don't know what pH is."
CONGRATULATIONS! You have FINALLY learned what every real chemistry student learns in their first year of study.
Chemists refer to hydrogen ions as "protons".
Seems to me that there was a team effort to deny this simple fact.
Don't you feel stupid for all the silly things you said to insist that chemists do NOT refer to hydrogen ions as "protons"?
It is much too steep and slow a learning curve, however.
It will take another two years before you realize what pH IS, and not simply what it is NOT.
pH IS the negative logarithm of hydrogen ion chemical activity
pH = -log[H+]
Or maybe it is just the MATH you can't figure out.
Pretend it is not any kind of "chemical"
What is the negative logarithm of 1.0?
-log1 = 0, as in ZERO
Don't they teach MATH at Chemistry Clown College? |
| 24-12-2024 22:46 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
And therefore, because SCIENCE is not a CHEMICAL..
"Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You cannot resist pH change with buzzwords" - Into the Night
Because carbonate is not a chemical, it is just a buzzword. The so-called "Carbonate System" is an extended meaningless buzzword.
It is of paramount importance to identify when something is NOT a chemical, because it is probably just a meaningless buzzword. And since you cannot resist pH change with a buzzword, mention of "carbonate" is irrelevant in any discussion of sea water pH buffering. WATER ITSELF is the only pH buffer you need to discuss.
If it isn't a "chemical", it's just a "buzzword" with no meaningful place in discussion of science.
SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL. Is it?
Can we discard any scientific discussion that includes term "science", because science is NOT a chemical?
Or can a clever word game transform science into a "chemical"?
Yup. Bicarbonate and carbonate are just MEANINGLESS BUZZWORDS that have no place in any discussion of sea water pH buffering. It's the WATER, dumbass.
And don't think that by calling them "carbonate ion" and "bicarbonate ion" will somehow make them any less of a "buzzword".
"Calcium carbonate" is okay to say, because calcium carbonate IS a chemical.
But that "carbonate ion" and "bicarbonate ion" shit doesn't fly around here.
Bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions are NOT chemicals. Just buzzwords.
And "You cannot resist pH change with buzzwords".
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
"Water itself is a buffer for acid". "Dilution is buffering, moron." "Water is an excellent pH buffer." and multiple variations of the same assertion.
Perhaps you can explain, for the FIRST TIME, the chemical principles/mechanisms that make "water itself", an "excellent pH buffer".
Maybe you can explain for the FIRST TIME why you EVADE the definition of "buffering," which does not have a dilution exclusion. May I remind you that the scientific consensus is that the ocean has a lot of water?
Yes, why do I EVADE the definition of buffering?
Because you don't know what it is.
Im a BM wrote:
I could do this Parrot style, and list everything that buffering is NOT.
Buffering is NOT dilution. Actually excluded by definition.
Dilution is absolute a form of buffering.
Im a BM wrote:
That is a long enough list now for everything that buffering is NOT.
So, what the heck IS buffering?
RQAA
Im a BM wrote:
People who know how to look up definitions have a lot of choices for the precise wording they like best, but they all essentially are definitions of the same thing.
Your buzzword and word games won't help you at all, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
A buffer is a substance DISSOLVED IN WATER which prevents large variations in pH upon addition of acid or base.
Water dissolves in water. A buffer doesn't pH changing.
Im a BM wrote:
In sea water, bicarbonate ions and carbonate ions provide the overwhelming majority of that capacity to resist pH change upon addition of acid.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. You can't resist pH change with buzzwords.
Im a BM wrote:
Even though these ions are not technically "chemicals" (such as sodium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate) they are major players in sea water chemistry.
Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. You deny and ignore chemistry. Buzzwords are not chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
That is why the impact of a drop of acid is so much "more pronounced", you know, when comparing sea water to pure water.
RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating questions that have already been answered.
Im a BM wrote:
And if you knew ANYTHING about this stuff, you would have noticed your own mistakes in claiming... for example, that pH is the negative NATURAL LOG of [H+], and that even though your program showed a negative pH, you were incapable of seeing that this number was below zero (i.e. a "magical" acid)
pH is NOT the negative natural log of protons. You still don't know what pH is.
Im a BM wrote:
You are too scientifically illiterate to have any discussion of value with, but you drove away all the scientists before I got here.
WRONG. You are whining to several scientists that are already here.
Edited on 24-12-2024 23:12 |
| 02-01-2025 18:41 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
"You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics." - Into daMann
Everyone is entitled to express their own unique opinions about the significance of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
2nd and 3rd laws too - The Thought Police are not allowed to tell us what to believe these laws might mean, if anything.
Opinions about what someone ELSE is "ignoring"... Everyone has a right to an opinion, but this gets closer to Thought Police territory.
The Thought Police have determined that someone ELSE is "ignoring" some particular thing that puts them in violation.
The Thought Police can read your mind and know what you ignore and do not ignore.
The Thought Police can tell you what your words REALLY mean.
And they are not happy about it.
I have my own OPINIONS about the laws of thermodynamics, which are very much in opposition to many of the opinions expressed at this website about this particular subject.
I don't pretend to have a PhD in thermodynamics. I never took anything more advanced than LOWER division physics courses from the Physics department of any university. The handful of UPPER division physics courses I took were specialized to soil and water, taught in other departments. So I don't pretend to be an "expert" when they throw around the "SB law makes climate change theoretically impossible" shit, and I stay out of it.
Everyone is free to express their OPINIONS about chemistry as well as about atmospheric thermodynamics.
I have my own OPINIONS about chemistry, which are in direct opposition to many of the OPINIONS about chemistry expressed at this website.
And I feel entitled to be quite arrogant and condescending about it, because I am recognized by the scientific community as a biogeochemistry "expert".
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
[quote]Mantra 30a. Don't put words in people's mouths. The Sun makes Venus hot. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
IbdaMann`s quote is here for everyone to see:
When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does
He is correct.
Xadoman wrote:
He says that the sheer quantity of atmosphere does have bearing on temperature.
It does.
Xadoman wrote:
He is the one who creates energyout of nothing and igonores the 1st law of thermodynamics.
He is not attempting to create energy. He is not attempting add energy to Venus at all.
Xadoman wrote:
[quote]Taking stuff out of context won't work.
His words are wrong in any context.
Contextomy fallacy.
Xadoman wrote:
The quantity of atmosphere can not be the cause of the temperature.
It isn't. It does have a bearing on the temperature though, just like Earth.
Xadoman wrote:
You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 30a. Lame.
I agree, IbdaMann is wrong.
He isn't wrong. You are making a contextomy fallacy.
Xadoman wrote:
The sheer quantity of atmosphere can not be the cause of the temperature of the planet or have an effect on it.
Any atmosphere has a bearing on the temperature at the surface of the planet or moon.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. Just the Sun
Not possible. It gets 2600w/m2 from the sun but emits 18000w/2 from the surface according to Boltzmann.
Argument from randU fallacies. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. You are also denying quantum mechanics.
Xadoman wrote:
Warmazombies explaine this by runaway greenhouse effect.
A bearing on a temperature is not 'greenhouse effect'. There is no such thing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth or any other planet or moon.
Xadoman wrote:
IbdaMann explaines this by "sheer quantity of atmosphere".
He is correct.
Xadoman wrote:
Both say that the cause of the temperature is the atmosphere.
Nope. The Church of Global Warming attempts to create energy out of nothing.
IBdaMann (and I) do recognize that an atmosphere does have a bearing on the temperature at the surface. That is NOT ADDING ENERGY AT ALL!
Xadoman wrote:
As you can see, IbdaMann is also a warmazombie.
Nope. Contextomy fallacy.
Xadoman wrote:
Nope. That's determined by gravity and mass.
Nope. Energy is needed for an atmosphere to form. More energy, more atmosphere outgases from the planet.
Nope. Just gravity and mass.
Xadoman wrote:
Earth at 0 Kelvin still has gravity and mass but zero atmosphere.
At 0 degK, Earth would not exist.
Xadoman wrote:
Earth with 500 degree celsius surface has very thick and hot atmosphere. The oceans would be up in the sky.
At 500 degC, there would be no oceans.
Xadoman wrote:
The atmospheric pressure would be very high, at least 270 bars , maybe more.
Nope. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
Xadoman wrote:
Between 0-500 degrees there are millions and millions of different atmospheric conditions.
For example if half of the oceans are up in the sky the atmospheric pressure would be around 135 bars. The atmosphere would be half as thick as it would be if all the oceans would be up in the sky.
Oceans cannot be up in the sky. Liquids are denser than gas. |
| 02-01-2025 22:33 |
Xadoman★★★★☆
(1090) |
Both IbdaMann and ITN are ingoring the first law of thermodynamics saying that the shear amount of gases will rise the temperature of the planet.
The cause and effect are upside down.
The Venus is not so incredibly hot because of its thick atmosphere.
The Venus has a thick atmosphere because it is so hot.
The Venus has a very hot inner core and thin mantle. The surface is very hot because of it. The hot surface causes a creat amount of material to outgas from the surface into the atmosphere.
Simple as that. |
| 02-01-2025 23:16 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Xadoman wrote:
Both IbdaMann and ITN are ingoring the first law of thermodynamics saying that the shear amount of gases will rise the temperature of the planet.
The cause and effect are upside down.
The Venus is not so incredibly hot because of its thick atmosphere.
The Venus has a thick atmosphere because it is so hot.
The Venus has a very hot inner core and thin mantle. The surface is very hot because of it. The hot surface causes a creat amount of material to outgas from the surface into the atmosphere.
Simple as that.
I am not sure that I agree.
I am not convinced that Into daMann is IGNORING thermodynamics.
Into daMann simply doesn't even know what thermodynamics IS.
You cannot "ignore" something that you were otherwise completely unaware of. |
| 03-01-2025 02:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Both IbdaMann and ITN are ingoring the first law of thermodynamics saying that the shear amount of gases will rise the temperature of the planet.
The cause and effect are upside down.
The Venus is not so incredibly hot because of its thick atmosphere.
The Venus has a thick atmosphere because it is so hot.
The Venus has a very hot inner core and thin mantle. The surface is very hot because of it. The hot surface causes a creat amount of material to outgas from the surface into the atmosphere.
Simple as that.
I am not sure that I agree.
I am not convinced that Into daMann is IGNORING thermodynamics.
Into daMann simply doesn't even know what thermodynamics IS.
You cannot "ignore" something that you were otherwise completely unaware of.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on IBdaMann or anybody else.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 03-01-2025 02:03 |
| 03-01-2025 04:50 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Both IbdaMann and ITN are ingoring the first law of thermodynamics saying that the shear amount of gases will rise the temperature of the planet.
The cause and effect are upside down.
The Venus is not so incredibly hot because of its thick atmosphere.
The Venus has a thick atmosphere because it is so hot.
The Venus has a very hot inner core and thin mantle. The surface is very hot because of it. The hot surface causes a creat amount of material to outgas from the surface into the atmosphere.
Simple as that.
I am not sure that I agree.
I am not convinced that Into daMann is IGNORING thermodynamics.
Into daMann simply doesn't even know what thermodynamics IS.
You cannot "ignore" something that you were otherwise completely unaware of.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problem on IBdaMann or anybody else.
I wish that I had been here, nine years ago, when Into the Night put up his first post at climate-debate.com
IBdaMann is the only one left now among the active members who were already here before Into the Night's arrival.
Into the Night's first post was AWESOME!
He proposed a unique and original hypothesis to explain the actual behavior among gases that was MISINTERPRETED as "greenhouse gas" behavior by the mistaken scientists who had fooled the world.
It was the "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) hypothesis.
It displayed uncanny insight into applied thermodynamics.
Didn't really get a "thumbs up" from anyone.
IBdaMann wasn't ready to endorse it... not yet.
But NOW is the chance to fill in the last missing piece of the puzzle and SOLVE for the PIG hypothesis, using the ACTUAL VALUES for gas inertia!
This is the chance to finally PROVE that the falsifiable PIG hypothesis CANNOT be FALSIFIED
Phantom inertial gases do NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, and now we have the PROOF! |
| 03-01-2025 22:16 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
I wish that I had been here, nine years ago, when Into the Night put up his first post at climate-debate.com
IBdaMann is the only one left now among the active members who were already here before Into the Night's arrival.
Into the Night's first post was AWESOME!
He proposed a unique and original hypothesis to explain the actual behavior among gases that was MISINTERPRETED as "greenhouse gas" behavior by the mistaken scientists who had fooled the world.
It was the "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) hypothesis.
It displayed uncanny insight into applied thermodynamics.
Didn't really get a "thumbs up" from anyone.
IBdaMann wasn't ready to endorse it... not yet.
But NOW is the chance to fill in the last missing piece of the puzzle and SOLVE for the PIG hypothesis, using the ACTUAL VALUES for gas inertia!
This is the chance to finally PROVE that the falsifiable PIG hypothesis CANNOT be FALSIFIED
Phantom inertial gases do NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, and now we have the PROOF!
Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-01-2025 21:12 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I wish that I had been here, nine years ago, when Into the Night put up his first post at climate-debate.com
IBdaMann is the only one left now among the active members who were already here before Into the Night's arrival.
Into the Night's first post was AWESOME!
He proposed a unique and original hypothesis to explain the actual behavior among gases that was MISINTERPRETED as "greenhouse gas" behavior by the mistaken scientists who had fooled the world.
It was the "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) hypothesis.
It displayed uncanny insight into applied thermodynamics.
Didn't really get a "thumbs up" from anyone.
IBdaMann wasn't ready to endorse it... not yet.
But NOW is the chance to fill in the last missing piece of the puzzle and SOLVE for the PIG hypothesis, using the ACTUAL VALUES for gas inertia!
This is the chance to finally PROVE that the falsifiable PIG hypothesis CANNOT be FALSIFIED
Phantom inertial gases do NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, and now we have the PROOF!
Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
Science is not a chemical. |
| 06-01-2025 23:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
I wish that I had been here, nine years ago, when Into the Night put up his first post at climate-debate.com
IBdaMann is the only one left now among the active members who were already here before Into the Night's arrival.
Into the Night's first post was AWESOME!
He proposed a unique and original hypothesis to explain the actual behavior among gases that was MISINTERPRETED as "greenhouse gas" behavior by the mistaken scientists who had fooled the world.
It was the "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) hypothesis.
It displayed uncanny insight into applied thermodynamics.
Didn't really get a "thumbs up" from anyone.
IBdaMann wasn't ready to endorse it... not yet.
But NOW is the chance to fill in the last missing piece of the puzzle and SOLVE for the PIG hypothesis, using the ACTUAL VALUES for gas inertia!
This is the chance to finally PROVE that the falsifiable PIG hypothesis CANNOT be FALSIFIED
Phantom inertial gases do NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics, and now we have the PROOF!
Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
Science is not a chemical. Nobody said it was, Robert. Random phrase. No apparent coherency.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |