| 09-01-2025 00:28 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
I wish to praise Into the Night for being such an excellent science instructor.
From Into the Night I have learned that science is not something that is not science.
I have also learned that something that is not a chemical is not a chemical.
I am so grateful for the wisdom Into the Night has shared.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Edited to correct Into the Night quote:
"Where do they get the hydrogen, dumbass?"
Apparently you are unaware that hydrogen is available in both the atmosphere and in the ground.
Im a BM wrote:
The "synthesis" of methane can occur by many different pathways, from many different chemicals that can be reactants to synthesize it.
Nope. All you need is a carbon source and a hydrogen source and the right conditions.
Im a BM wrote:
The specific pathway/reactants being discussed/evaded is microbiological methanogenesis (only a buzzword if you refuse to look it up).
There is no such word a methanogenesis.
Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, the CHEMISTRY CLOWN has no idea what the term "endothermic" means.
Let's start by making it clear what EXO thermic means, because Into the Night may simply have gotten them mixed up.
The combustion of methane is exothermic.
When methane gets transformed into carbon dioxide through combination with oxygen, energy is released. That energy can be exploited for human benefit. One way that the energy release is manifest is to produce HEAT.
When hydrogen gets transformed into water through combination with oxygen, energy is released. Like methane combustion, hydrogen combustion is also EXOTHERMIC.
Your word games won't work, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
When hydrogen gets transformed into methane through combination with carbon dioxide, energy is released. Much LESS exothermic than methane or hydrogen combustion, but EXOTHERMIC none the less.
Hydrogen is not methane. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The synthesis of methane is an endothermic reaction. The synthesis of carbohydrates is an endothermic reaction.
You can't create energy out of nothing, Robert. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. |
| 13-01-2025 00:43 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
I wish to praise Into the Night for being such an excellent science instructor.
From Into the Night I have learned that science is not something that is not science.
I have also learned that something that is not a chemical is not a chemical.
I am so grateful for the wisdom Into the Night has shared.
My word games WILL work.
Oh, yes! My word games will work.
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
(that is the laugh of a lunatic)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Edited to correct Into the Night quote:
"Where do they get the hydrogen, dumbass?"
Apparently you are unaware that hydrogen is available in both the atmosphere and in the ground.
Im a BM wrote:
The "synthesis" of methane can occur by many different pathways, from many different chemicals that can be reactants to synthesize it.
Nope. All you need is a carbon source and a hydrogen source and the right conditions.
Im a BM wrote:
The specific pathway/reactants being discussed/evaded is microbiological methanogenesis (only a buzzword if you refuse to look it up).
There is no such word a methanogenesis.
Im a BM wrote:
Obviously, the CHEMISTRY CLOWN has no idea what the term "endothermic" means.
Let's start by making it clear what EXO thermic means, because Into the Night may simply have gotten them mixed up.
The combustion of methane is exothermic.
When methane gets transformed into carbon dioxide through combination with oxygen, energy is released. That energy can be exploited for human benefit. One way that the energy release is manifest is to produce HEAT.
When hydrogen gets transformed into water through combination with oxygen, energy is released. Like methane combustion, hydrogen combustion is also EXOTHERMIC.
Your word games won't work, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
When hydrogen gets transformed into methane through combination with carbon dioxide, energy is released. Much LESS exothermic than methane or hydrogen combustion, but EXOTHERMIC none the less.
Hydrogen is not methane. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. The synthesis of methane is an endothermic reaction. The synthesis of carbohydrates is an endothermic reaction.
You can't create energy out of nothing, Robert. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. |
| 16-01-2025 23:07 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(23487) |
Stop spamming. |
| 11-03-2025 21:32 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.
Then Professor Parrot says:
"The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic.
There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon.
You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."
Chemistry Clown says:
"Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic.
CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy
Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory.
There are multiple ways to apply thermodynamics to calculate how much energy is released.
But the simplest approach is to view it as a transformation of fuels, both of which can release energy upon combustion: Hydrogen versus methane.
Using the same oxidant (O2) for both:
H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 286 kJ/mol
CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + 890 kJ/mol
Molecule per molecule, more energy is released from oxidation of methane than from oxidation of hydrogen. About three times as much.
Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule. 4 molecules of hydrogen are oxidized to yield one molecule of methane. (4x 286 kJ/mol)
CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + 254 kJ/mol (exothermic)
4 x 286 kJ/mol (reactant fuel energy content) = 1144 kJ/mol released from hydrogen oxidation
But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane. (890 kJ/mol CONSUMED, not released.)
Without invoking thermodynamics, think of a fuel processing facility that consumes four molecules of hydrogen to generate just one molecule of methane. Then do the math and see if it is a good investment.
Or consider the converse. If this is NOT an exothermic reaction, someone can get a Nobel prize by discovering how methanogens survive, as it has been long believed that this is their sole source of energy.
Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis. To get the exact number you have to apply the thermodynamics knowing the energies of all products and reactants in their "standard states". It is still exothermic, but not exactly 254 kJ/mol.
It is more intuitively obvious if one thinks of the energy content of hydrogen fuel on one side of the equation and the methane fuel on the other.
Methanogenic bacteria are autotrophic, meaning they take inorganic carbon and transform it to organic carbon (chemically oxidized versus chemically reduced C). Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon monoxide. Organic carbon includes the other 100,000 compounds of carbon, in chemically reduced form, that comprise what is studied in the field of "organic" chemistry.
Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed.
"Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane.
Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."
Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries.
But I could never fool a true scientific genius.
The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that:
"Alligators are amphibians."
WTF??? |
| 12-03-2025 07:17 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(15067) |
Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."
What makes you think that the English language somehow needs a falsifiable theory to which to adhere?
I'll give you a primer on how the English language works.
First, the word "amphibious" (adjective) means that it functions, as normal operations, in water and on land both. You might be familiar with certain amphibious watercraft, for example, or recognize that alligators hunt in water.
Second, the word "amphibian" (adjective) is a synonym for "amphibious."
Third, according to the rules of English usage, any animal that is amphibious, is amphibian, and is therefore an amphibian.
A common misonception is to mistakenly believe that a particular biology taxonomy somehow overwrites the default context of the English language. Alligators are not amphibians only when the context of biology taxonomy is specified; otherwise the English language is the default context and, of course, alligators are amphibious.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
|
|
| 12-03-2025 22:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.
No such thing as 'methanogenic'.
Im a BM wrote:
There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon.
Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."
Correct. You deny chemistry and theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."
They are. Not a theory.
Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry Clown says:
"Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians."
They are. Not a theory.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic.
No such thing as 'methanogenesis'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory.
Buzzwords are not a theory.
Im a BM wrote:
There are multiple ways to apply thermodynamics to calculate how much energy is released.
But the simplest approach is to view it as a transformation of fuels, both of which can release energy upon combustion: Hydrogen versus methane.
You deny thermodynamics. You think energy can be created out of nothing. You think you can heat a warmer object with a colder one.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule.
No such thing as 'methanogenesis'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane.
Carbon dioxide is not being reduced.
Im a BM wrote:
Without invoking thermodynamics,
You deny thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Or consider the converse. If this is NOT an exothermic reaction, someone can get a Nobel prize by discovering how methanogens survive, as it has been long believed that this is their sole source of energy.
Science is not a prize.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis.
No such thing as methanogenesis.
Im a BM wrote:
Methanogenic bacteria are autotrophic, meaning they take inorganic carbon and transform it to organic carbon (chemically oxidized versus chemically reduced C). Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon monoxide. Organic carbon includes the other 100,000 compounds of carbon, in chemically reduced form, that comprise what is studied in the field of "organic" chemistry.
No such thing as 'methanogenesis'. Carbon is not organic. There is no 'chemically reduced form' of carbon. Carbon is an element.
Im a BM wrote:
Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed.
No such thing as 'methanogenesis'. Coal is not a gas.
Im a BM wrote:
"Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane.
Carbon is not organic. Coal is not a gas.
Im a BM wrote:
Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry."
Correct. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries.
Science does not use consensus. You are not a chemist. I don't care how many people you have fooled.
Im a BM wrote:
But I could never fool a true scientific genius.
Science is not an IQ.
Im a BM wrote:
The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that:
"Alligators are amphibians."
Alligators are amphibians. It is no theory.
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 |
| 13-03-2025 00:11 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians."
What makes you think that the English language somehow needs a falsifiable theory to which to adhere?
I'll give you a primer on how the English language works.
First, the word "amphibious" (adjective) means that it functions, as normal operations, in water and on land both. You might be familiar with certain amphibious watercraft, for example, or recognize that alligators hunt in water.
Second, the word "amphibian" (adjective) is a synonym for "amphibious."
Third, according to the rules of English usage, any animal that is amphibious, is amphibian, and is therefore an amphibian.
A common misonception is to mistakenly believe that a particular biology taxonomy somehow overwrites the default context of the English language. Alligators are not amphibians only when the context of biology taxonomy is specified; otherwise the English language is the default context and, of course, alligators are amphibious.
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
After more than nine years of trolling, there are no less than 500-1000 former members who know exactly what you have to offer.
Perhaps they were too chicken shit scared to come to you with the hard stuff.
In addition to the several hundred members who didn't quit posting here until AFTER they were given a very personal demonstration of what you have offer...
How many thousand others have had the opportunity to learn from your valuable science lessons?
Those lessons are so complete and informative, they don't HAVE to come to you with the hard stuff.
They don't even have to join as members to ask you their science questions.
They can simply look up your 15000 posts and learn, learn, learn..
A scientific genius and a master communicator, you settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.
You will FAIL the introductory biology exam if you call alligators "amphibians". |
| 13-03-2025 03:48 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(15067) |
Im a BM wrote: How many thousand others have had the opportunity to learn from your valuable science lessons?
Many, however, much value was gained by those who had the opportunity to learn from my valuable English lessons.
Im a BM wrote: They can simply look up your 15000 posts and learn, learn, learn..
Except that you forced me to re-explain things to you that I had already posted on this site several times, but that you weren't somehow able to look up.
Im a BM wrote:A scientific genius and a master communicator, you settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.
I like to do it right the first time. It's like doing a crossword puzzle in pen.
Im a BM wrote:You will FAIL the introductory biology exam if you call alligators "amphibians".
You probably FAILED the introductory English exam by erroneously labelling alligators as "not amphibious". |
| 13-03-2025 04:14 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(3120) |
Im a BM wrote:
A scientific genius and a master communicator, you (IBdaMann) settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.
Why then, are you responding? May I presume that you still just don't get it?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 13-03-2025 17:14 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Credibility Quiz
1. What are your three most famous EVASIONS as a poster on Climate-Debate? How many posts over how many threads did you NOT provide an appropriate response? How many hundreds of times have you been asked in futile efforts to get you to clearly answer a question or to clearly state your position?
2. What are your three most famous buzzwords that you simply will never define? How many posts over how many threads have you used those undefined buzzwords to string others along, and to reel them in, to the phony notion that you are somehow an expert in something being discussed.
3. What are the three most prestigious internet links that you have strategically dropped to divert others who were getting too close to asking uncomfortable questions? Did you actually get others to waste their time watching a video or two?
4. What are you three most advanced amazing credentials that you have claimed on an anonymous forum? Which prestigious academic institutions did you claim were the source of these amazing credentials? Did you use the phrase "peer reviewed" the required minimum of three times to get full credit? Did you mention your prowess with the gamma-spec? Did your essay recounting your court testimony engender envy for having changed the course of human destiny?
5. Have you ever used the term "natural science" to see if anyone would notice that there isn't any other type of science? Have you ever used terms like "organic carbon" or "biogeochemistry" just to see if anyone would notice that there is no such thing?
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what strange diagrams will you find linked to your name? Which Indian tribes bring back the best memories?
7. Are you working towards building a personal library to leave as your most honorable legacy as a poster?
8. Which three religions do you feel are most relevant to discussion of climate change?
9. Which three presentations that you presented overseas and in a foreign language had the highest degree of environmental impact in that country and was used in the bilateral negotiations of that country?
10. Has anyone besides yourself ever challenged your standing in any online forum as the resident expert in science? If so, how would they know?
Was any actual science presented or was it just a buzzword soup in a gibber-babble broth?
Does anyone besides IBdaMann support the absurd assertion that Into the Night is some kind of "chemist"?
According to IBdaMann and Into the Night, pH MUST be greater than zero and less than fourteen. This is despite the fact that industrial caustic soda has pH greater than fourteen, and many mineral acids (nitric, sulfuric, hydrochloric, etc.) have pH less than zero when they are in concentrated form.
They further assert that water itself is a pH buffer and dilution is buffering.
As for any role of weak acids or bases (such as bicarbonate ions and bicarbonate ions), they say you cannot buffer against pH change with something that doesn't even exist.
Nor does climate change exist, according to the two "scientists" who have 38,000 posts between the two of them, as the trolls who dominate here.
Their cult used to be larger in the past.
Only the very most faithful of their religious followers remain to check in once in a while.
"You don't even know what science is", they both say, to anyone who dares to post anything that qualifies as science. |
| 13-03-2025 21:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
After more than nine years of trolling, there are no less than 500-1000 former members who know exactly what you have to offer.
There were never 500 active members (or even close to it) on Climate-Debate.com, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps they were too chicken shit scared to come to you with the hard stuff.
A fair number did, and they came away enlightened.
Im a BM wrote:
In addition to the several hundred members who didn't quit posting here until AFTER they were given a very personal demonstration of what you have offer...
There were never several hundred members posting here, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
How many thousand others have had the opportunity to learn from your valuable science lessons?
Some listened, some religious maniacs, like you, don't.
Im a BM wrote:
Those lessons are so complete and informative, they don't HAVE to come to you with the hard stuff.
Yet they did, and came away enlightened.
Im a BM wrote:
They don't even have to join as members to ask you their science questions.
They can simply look up your 15000 posts and learn, learn, learn..
It's easier to ask. He and I are more than willing to share.
Im a BM wrote:
scientific genius and a master communicator, you settle it all so clearly that nobody even needs to respond to your posts.
Science is not an IQ, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
You will FAIL the introductory biology exam if you call alligators "amphibians".
Not biology. English. You flunked.
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 |
| 13-03-2025 22:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
Does anyone besides IBdaMann support the absurd assertion that Into the Night is some kind of "chemist"?
Doesn't matter. I am a chemist.
Im a BM wrote:
According to IBdaMann and Into the Night, pH MUST be greater than zero and less than fourteen.
That's right. Are you going to demonstrate yet again that you know nothing about pH?
Im a BM wrote:
This is despite the fact that industrial caustic soda has pH greater than fourteen,
Not possible. No such material.
Im a BM wrote:
and many mineral acids (nitric, sulfuric, hydrochloric, etc.) have pH less than zero when they are in concentrated form.
Not possible.
Im a BM wrote:
They further assert that water itself is a pH buffer and dilution is buffering.
It is.
Im a BM wrote:
As for any role of weak acids or bases (such as bicarbonate ions and bicarbonate ions), they say you cannot buffer against pH change with something that doesn't even exist.
Bicarbonate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Nor does climate change exist,
'Climate change' only exists as a religious chant. Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
according to the two "scientists" who have 38,000 posts between the two of them, as the trolls who dominate here.
Buzzword fallacy.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Their cult used to be larger in the past.
Buzzword fallacy. You cannot blame your religion on anybody else.
Im a BM wrote:
Only the very most faithful of their religious followers remain to check in once in a while.
"You don't even know what science is", they both say, to anyone who dares to post anything that qualifies as science.
You religion is not science, Robert.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-01-2026 22:57 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Bonus question:
11. Have your published chemistry discoveries been cited in more than a thousand different peer reviewed scientific papers or textbooks specifically because of their relevance to chemistry?
CHEMISTRY CREDIBILITY QUIZ
1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research chemist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied chemistry and chemical engineering or chemical laboratory methodology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied by chemists?
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?
5. What are the chemistry courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three chemistry research accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a chemist?
8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert chemist witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
9. Which three of chemistry presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as a "chemist"?
If so, how would THEY know?
Does it take one to know one? |
| 04-01-2026 22:10 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
Bonus question:
...and now for some more demonstration that you don't know chemistry or science...
Im a BM wrote:
11. Have your published chemistry discoveries been cited in more than a thousand different peer reviewed scientific papers or textbooks specifically because of their relevance to chemistry?
CHEMISTRY CREDIBILITY QUIZ
Chemistry isn't 'discoveries'. Chemistry isn't a paper or textbook. Chemistry does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in chemistry. Argument from randU fallacy. Chemistry isn't 'credibility' or a quiz.
Im a BM wrote:
1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research chemist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?
Chemistry isn't 'discovery'. Science isn't a journal or magazine. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a citation. Science isn't a book.
Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied chemistry and chemical engineering or chemical laboratory methodology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied by chemists?
Chemistry isn't 'methodology'. Chemistry isn't a publication.
Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?
Science isn'g a journal. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?
Science isn't a degree or academic institution
Im a BM wrote:
5. What are the chemistry courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry isn't a course or class. Chemistry is not a professor. Chemistry is not a college or university.
Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three chemistry research accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?
Chemistry is not a website or search engine. Chemistry is not a 'research'.
Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a chemist?
Chemistry is not a legacy.
Im a BM wrote:
8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert chemist witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry is not a witness.
Im a BM wrote:
9. Which three of chemistry presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry is not a conference. Science is not a conference.
Courtier's fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as a "chemist"?
Yes.
Im a BM wrote:
If so, how would THEY know?
They are also chemists.
Im a BM wrote:
Does it take one to know one?
No, but it helps.
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 04-01-2026 22:20 |
| 04-01-2026 23:25 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
"Something is NOT something else that it is not." - Super Genius
I count 32 "sentences" in ITN's reply.
With the exception of maybe half a dozen, they are all variations of "something is not something else"
Only a scientific genius would realize that something is not something else.
Science is not a chemical!
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Bonus question:
...and now for some more demonstration that you don't know chemistry or science...
Im a BM wrote:
11. Have your published chemistry discoveries been cited in more than a thousand different peer reviewed scientific papers or textbooks specifically because of their relevance to chemistry?
CHEMISTRY CREDIBILITY QUIZ
Chemistry isn't 'discoveries'. Chemistry isn't a paper or textbook. Chemistry does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in chemistry. Argument from randU fallacy. Chemistry isn't 'credibility' or a quiz.
Im a BM wrote:
1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research chemist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?
Chemistry isn't 'discovery'. Science isn't a journal or magazine. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a citation. Science isn't a book.
Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied chemistry and chemical engineering or chemical laboratory methodology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied by chemists?
Chemistry isn't 'methodology'. Chemistry isn't a publication.
Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?
Science isn'g a journal. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?
Science isn't a degree or academic institution
Im a BM wrote:
5. What are the chemistry courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry isn't a course or class. Chemistry is not a professor. Chemistry is not a college or university.
Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three chemistry research accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?
Chemistry is not a website or search engine. Chemistry is not a 'research'.
Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a chemist?
Chemistry is not a legacy.
Im a BM wrote:
8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert chemist witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry is not a witness.
Im a BM wrote:
9. Which three of chemistry presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry is not a conference. Science is not a conference.
Courtier's fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as a "chemist"?
Yes.
Im a BM wrote:
If so, how would THEY know?
They are also chemists.
Im a BM wrote:
Does it take one to know one?
No, but it helps. |
|
| 07-01-2026 04:51 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
"Something is NOT something else that it is not." - Super Genius
I count 32 "sentences" in ITN's reply.
With the exception of maybe half a dozen, they are all variations of "something is not something else"
Only a scientific genius would realize that something is not something else.
Science is not a chemical!
But what the heck is "chemistry"?
This post by ITN won't reveal any secrets about what chemistry IS, but...
ITN teaches us that chemistry is NOT: "discoveries", a paper or textbook, "credibility" or a quiz, "discovery", "methodology", a publication, a course or a class, a professor, a college or university, a website or search engine, a "research", a legacy, a witness, or a conference.
ITN won't reveal what chemistry IS, but he's giving us all we need to figure it out by process of elimination.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Bonus question:
...and now for some more demonstration that you don't know chemistry or science...
Im a BM wrote:
11. Have your published chemistry discoveries been cited in more than a thousand different peer reviewed scientific papers or textbooks specifically because of their relevance to chemistry?
CHEMISTRY CREDIBILITY QUIZ
Chemistry isn't 'discoveries'. Chemistry isn't a paper or textbook. Chemistry does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in chemistry. Argument from randU fallacy. Chemistry isn't 'credibility' or a quiz.
Im a BM wrote:
1. What are your three most famous discoveries as a research chemist?
Which prestigious scientific journals were they published in?
How many hundreds of times have you been cited by other scientists in peer reviewed scientific journal, scientific textbooks, etc.?
Chemistry isn't 'discovery'. Science isn't a journal or magazine. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a citation. Science isn't a book.
Im a BM wrote:
2. What are your three most famous contributions to applied chemistry and chemical engineering or chemical laboratory methodology?
Where are they published and how are they being applied by chemists?
Chemistry isn't 'methodology'. Chemistry isn't a publication.
Im a BM wrote:
3. What are the three most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals for which you have served as a reviewer?
Science isn'g a journal. Science does not use consensus.
Im a BM wrote:
4. What are you three most advanced scientific degrees?
Which prestigious academic institutions did you earn them from?
Science isn't a degree or academic institution
Im a BM wrote:
5. What are the chemistry courses you taught as a professor at an accredited college or university that are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry isn't a course or class. Chemistry is not a professor. Chemistry is not a college or university.
Im a BM wrote:
6. If you do a Google search of your real name, what are the three chemistry research accomplishments listed that you are most proud of?
Chemistry is not a website or search engine. Chemistry is not a 'research'.
Im a BM wrote:
7. What do you hope will be your most honorable legacy as a chemist?
Chemistry is not a legacy.
Im a BM wrote:
8. Which three cases in which you testified as an expert chemist witness in Federal or State court are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry is not a witness.
Im a BM wrote:
9. Which three of chemistry presentations you have given at national or international scientific conferences are most relevant to discussion of chemistry?
Chemistry is not a conference. Science is not a conference.
Courtier's fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
10. Has anyone besides yourself ever characterized you as a "chemist"?
Yes.
Im a BM wrote:
If so, how would THEY know?
They are also chemists.
Im a BM wrote:
Does it take one to know one?
No, but it helps. [/quote] |
| 07-01-2026 07:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
"Something is NOT something else that it is not." - Super Genius
I count 32 "sentences" in ITN's reply.
With the exception of maybe half a dozen, they are all variations of "something is not something else"
Only a scientific genius would realize that something is not something else.
Science is not a chemical!
But what the heck is "chemistry"?
This post by ITN won't reveal any secrets about what chemistry IS, but...
ITN teaches us that chemistry is NOT: "discoveries", a paper or textbook, "credibility" or a quiz, "discovery", "methodology", a publication, a course or a class, a professor, a college or university, a website or search engine, a "research", a legacy, a witness, or a conference.
ITN won't reveal what chemistry IS, but he's giving us all we need to figure it out by process of elimination.
Still can't figure out what chemistry is, can you Robert? Several people have told you, including me, and you STILL don't get it.
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
Edited on 07-01-2026 07:49 |
| 07-01-2026 09:22 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
"Something is NOT something else that it is not." - Super Genius
I count 32 "sentences" in ITN's reply.
With the exception of maybe half a dozen, they are all variations of "something is not something else"
Only a scientific genius would realize that something is not something else.
Science is not a chemical!
But what the heck is "chemistry"?
This post by ITN won't reveal any secrets about what chemistry IS, but...
ITN teaches us that chemistry is NOT: "discoveries", a paper or textbook, "credibility" or a quiz, "discovery", "methodology", a publication, a course or a class, a professor, a college or university, a website or search engine, a "research", a legacy, a witness, or a conference.
ITN won't reveal what chemistry IS, but he's giving us all we need to figure it out by process of elimination.
Still can't figure out what chemistry is, can you Robert? Several people have told you, including me, and you STILL don't get it.
RQAA
You are not God.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming. |
| 07-01-2026 20:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
You are not God.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming.
YARP
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 |
| 07-01-2026 21:55 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
You are not God.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming.
YARP
SECRET "chemist" Into the Night knows more than chemistry textbooks.
The secret definition for "carbohydrate", for example.
ITN assures us that VEGETABLE OIL is a "carbohydrate".
But he won't reveal the secret definition that enables him to discern this fact.
He has no respect for the labels on the bottles of vegetable oil that claim, under the "Nutrition Facts" section, that the product contains 0 grams of carbohydrate.
Science is not a "label"! |
| 08-01-2026 08:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
You are not God.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming.
YARP
SECRET "chemist" Into the Night knows more than chemistry textbooks.
The secret definition for "carbohydrate", for example.
ITN assures us that VEGETABLE OIL is a "carbohydrate".
But he won't reveal the secret definition that enables him to discern this fact.
He has no respect for the labels on the bottles of vegetable oil that claim, under the "Nutrition Facts" section, that the product contains 0 grams of carbohydrate.
Science is not a "label"!
Chemistry is not a book, label, or marketing campaign.
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 |
| 08-01-2026 18:32 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
You are not God.
Science is not a chemical.
Stop spamming.
YARP
SECRET "chemist" Into the Night knows more than chemistry textbooks.
The secret definition for "carbohydrate", for example.
ITN assures us that VEGETABLE OIL is a "carbohydrate".
But he won't reveal the secret definition that enables him to discern this fact.
He has no respect for the labels on the bottles of vegetable oil that claim, under the "Nutrition Facts" section, that the product contains 0 grams of carbohydrate.
Science is not a "label"!
Chemistry is not a book, label, or marketing campaign.
Still can't find the definitions for basic terms in organic chemistry?
Sure, you can call vegetable a "carbohydrate" if it makes you feel better.
You are the ONLY ONE who really knows. And you keep it all a SECRET. |
| 09-01-2026 06:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
Still can't find the definitions for basic terms in organic chemistry?
Sure, you can call vegetable a "carbohydrate" if it makes you feel better.
You are the ONLY ONE who really knows. And you keep it all a SECRET.
You can't blame your problems on me or anybody else, Robert.
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 |
| 09-01-2026 08:50 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Still can't find the definitions for basic terms in organic chemistry?
Sure, you can call vegetable a "carbohydrate" if it makes you feel better.
You are the ONLY ONE who really knows. And you keep it all a SECRET.
You can't blame your problems on me or anybody else, Robert.
RQAA. |
| 09-01-2026 10:07 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
RQAA.
YARP
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 |
| 09-01-2026 22:44 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
RQAA.
YARP
YARP?
How would YOU know, you pathetic dropout pretends to understand "science"? |
| 10-01-2026 04:18 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(23487) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
RQAA.
YARP
YARP?
How would YOU know, you pathetic dropout pretends to understand "science"?
YARP.
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 |
| 11-01-2026 23:23 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(2852) |
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This is the line that caught my attention.
incorrect accepted theory is based upon mathematical assertions rather than some observed reality.
Did he just admit the impossibility of assigning numerical values to the reality of climate change?
What he did was ... he denied science outright. Science requires math to be unambiguous which is needed to be falsifiable which is required for a model to be science. Note: if you ask Into the Night, he uses different wording but he'll effectively tell you the same thing, i.e. that science, an open functional system, requires math, a closed functional system, to predict nature ... the purpose of a science model.
If you remove the unambiguous "mathematical assertions" from any science model, you no longer have the science model. His statement effectively reads "science is just a bunch of incorrect models erroneously containing math."
Kent is reiterating his scientific illiteracy and science denial. I don't have any particular need to beat up on the guy, but I genuinely tried to help him and he dismissively rejected my assistance based on his having already committed voluminous science denial to writing. He demanded I provide internet links to support the science I was trying to teach him and ultimately rejected it all because he was the one who had written double-digit "peer reviewed" papers.
Ergo, beating up on Kent has a certain satisfying and relaxing quality.
You have my take on it quite right. Kent not only deserves it, beating up on the guy clarifies what science is about, and why it is defined the way it is; a set of falsifiable theories.
For a theory to be falsifiable, there must be available a test against the theory itself that is:
* practical to conduct.
* available to conduct.
* is specific (this is where the math comes in).
* produces a specific result (this is again where the math comes in).
As long as a theory can withstand such tests designed to destroy it, it's a theory of science.
In other words, science only uses falsifying evidence.
Kent was trying to use supporting evidence to 'prove' a theory True. This not only what a religion does, it is also what a fundamentalist does. Only religions use supporting evidence. A theory of science supports itself. It needs no supporting evidence other than the theory itself.
Another thing Kent makes a grave mistake on is that evidence is not a proof. In so doing, he discards logic in favor of a circular argument fallacy (again, fundamentalism), but also philosophy. The very words 'science', 'religion', 'real', and 'reality' are defined here, and the reasoning for those definitions is also given.
So Kent denies and discards mathematics, science, logic, and philosophy in favor of his religion.
The science model absolutely depends on math. It also absolutely depends on logic, which provides the path to associate the math formula (called a 'law' when referring to a theory of science) to the theory itself.
Gosh, these guys are smart!
They really know what "science" is, don't they? |
