Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
It turns out that "there is no such thing as" a lot of terms in those FAKE chemistry textbooks. Entire chapters dedicated to the "buzzword" about some kind of "oxidation".

Chemistry is not a book.

Im a BM wrote:
Reality check on iron pyrite. Pyrite forms under low oxygen conditions through the action of sulfate-reducing bacteria. The bacteria use sulfate ion dissolved in the water as a terminal electron acceptor to oxidize organic carbon in the absence of oxygen. Sulfate is reduced to sulfide, while organic carbon is oxidized to carbonate ion. Pyrite decomposes under aerobic conditions through the action of sulfur oxidizing bacteria. Sulfur oxidation is the source of metabolic energy, using O2 oxygen as oxidant. The sulfide in pyrite gets oxidized to sulfuric acid by bacteria under aerobic conditions. Sulfur oxidation generated sulfuric acid. Sulfate reduction generates carbonate ion alkalinity.

Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Carbon is not organic. Sulfide is not a chemical. Carbonate is not a chemical. Sulfur isn't oxygen. Alkalinity is not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
Actually, you CAN reduce a sulfate. It's called "sulfate reduction". Google it! (because by now you realize that Google IS God)

Sulfate is not a chemical. You cannot reduce it.
Chemistry is not a search engine.

Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry is not a search engine? Gosh! Who knew?

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the fact that you are unable to comprehend the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" that I have published about CHEMISTRY in CHEMISTRY journals.. Well, it suggests that your knowledge of the subject matter may be deficient.

Im a BM wrote:
Everybody has the right to be stupid.

Im a BM wrote:
But you have no right to falsely accuse me of NOT being a "chemist", especially when you make it so obvious that you don't even know what chemistry IS.

Im a BM wrote:
Vegetable oil and lignin and polyphenols and terpenes are all "carbohydrates", because that's all plants know how to make other than proteins, right?

Im a BM wrote:
Keep telling yourself, "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

Im a BM wrote:
And to honor the website, "climate cannot change", right?

Im a BM wrote:
Keep on trolling, Professor Nothing!

Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Chemistry is not a search engine? Gosh! Who knew?

Me. Apparently you are still having a problem with this.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the fact that you are unable to comprehend the "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" that I have published about CHEMISTRY in CHEMISTRY journals.. Well, it suggests that your knowledge of the subject matter may be deficient.

Chemistry is not a publication, paper, journal, or magazine.

Im a BM wrote:
Everybody has the right to be stupid.

I see you are claiming this right.

Im a BM wrote:
But you have no right to falsely accuse me of NOT being a "chemist", especially when you make it so obvious that you don't even know what chemistry IS.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Vegetable oil and lignin and polyphenols and terpenes are all "carbohydrates", because that's all plants know how to make other than proteins, right?

I see you still don't get this.

Im a BM wrote:
Keep telling yourself, "there is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'".

There isn't.

Im a BM wrote:
And to honor the website, "climate cannot change", right?

That's right, though you still ignore English.

Im a BM wrote:
Keep on trolling, Professor Nothing!

Stop spamming.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on me or anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
GOOGLE is MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night

Here is more proof of that irrefutable fact.

I asked Google: "In chemistry, can sulfate be reduced"?

Because that LYIN' BROTHERMUCKER (Into the Night) has posted "sulfate cannot be reduced" HUNDREDS of times.

Google's answer? "Yes, sulfate SO4(2-) can be chemically reduced in both biological and chemical processes, typically converting sulfur from it +6 oxidation state to lower states, most commonly to sulfide (H2S), using electron donors like organic compounds or metals, often under anaerobic conditions."


Google = smart. ITN = not so smart.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
GOOGLE is MUCH SMARTER than Into the Night

Here is more proof of that irrefutable fact.

I asked Google: "In chemistry, can sulfate be reduced"?

Because that LYIN' BROTHERMUCKER (Into the Night) has posted "sulfate cannot be reduced" HUNDREDS of times.

Google's answer? "Yes, sulfate SO4(2-) can be chemically reduced in both biological and chemical processes, typically converting sulfur from it +6 oxidation state to lower states, most commonly to sulfide (H2S), using electron donors like organic compounds or metals, often under anaerobic conditions."


Google = smart. ITN = not so smart.

You are not Google. Chemistry is not a search engine. Sulfate is not a chemical. It cannot be reduced. Sulfide is not a chemical. Organic compounds aren't electrons. Metal is not electrons. Sulfur is not oxygen.

Go learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean Universal Truth.

Im a BM wrote:

No, something is NOT something else that it is not.

Wait... Are you SURE that "Organic compounds are not electrons"?

If you are correct, that shoots down your opponent's ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

No, something is NOT something else that it is not.

Wait... Are you SURE that "Organic compounds are not electrons"?

If you are correct, that shoots down your opponent's ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

You're the idiot that made it.

Im a BM wrote:
I completely forgot!

Yes, I wrote "Organic compounds are electrons".

I also wrote "Metals are electrons".

I also wrote "Sulfur is oxygen".

What other assertions did I make that you had to CORRECT?

Im a BM wrote:
I said, "I am Google", "Chemistry is a search engine", "Sulfate is a chemical", "Sulfide is a chemical", "Organic compounds are electrons" and "Metals are electrons", and "Sulfur is Oxygen".

Im a BM wrote:
My bad.

Therefore, the ONLY thing you needed to say in rebuttal to my points regarding chemistry was to point out that I am NOT Google, Chemistry is NOT a search engine, Organic compounds are NOT electrons, Metals are NOT electrons, Sulfur is NOT oxygen, etc.

Okay, now I stand corrected.

Im a BM wrote:
Do you HONESTLY believe that you understand ANY of this stuff?

Im a BM wrote:
A person can learn a LOT of chemistry by reading ITN's shit.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I completely forgot!

Yes, I wrote "Organic compounds are electrons".

I also wrote "Metals are electrons".

I also wrote "Sulfur is oxygen".

What other assertions did I make that you had to CORRECT?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:
I said, "I am Google", "Chemistry is a search engine", "Sulfate is a chemical", "Sulfide is a chemical", "Organic compounds are electrons" and "Metals are electrons", and "Sulfur is Oxygen".

Yup.

Im a BM wrote:
My bad.

Therefore, the ONLY thing you needed to say in rebuttal to my points regarding chemistry was to point out that I am NOT Google, Chemistry is NOT a search engine, Organic compounds are NOT electrons, Metals are NOT electrons, Sulfur is NOT oxygen, etc.

Okay, now I stand corrected.

No, you are confused.

Im a BM wrote:
Do you HONESTLY believe that you understand ANY of this stuff?

No, I don't understand you at all, Robert. Why you insist on your buzzwords being 'chemistry' and 'science' and why you insist on spamming and trolling makes no sense to me at all.

Im a BM wrote:
A person can learn a LOT of chemistry by reading ITN's shit.

Theories of science aren't shit, Robert. You just want to ignore them.
Mathematics is not shit, Robert. You just want to ignore it.
Logic is not shit, Robert. You just want to ignore it.

Your buzzwords and cross spamming ARE shit. Your courtier fallacies ARE shit. Your inversion fallacies ARE shit.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame me for YOUR problems!

Im a BM wrote:
You are not science.

God is not a chemical.

Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You are not science.

God is not a chemical.

Stop spamming.

YARP. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the SECRET "chemist", has a secret definition for pH buffering.

NO! Sea water pH buffering has NOTHING to do with bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, according to the SECRET "chemist". Because "carbonate is not a chemical", and neither is bicarbonate. Say it again, everybody. "Carbonate is not a chemical!"

The SECRET "chemist" teaches us that "Water itself is a buffer for acid".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, the SECRET "chemist", has a secret definition for pH buffering.

NO! Sea water pH buffering has NOTHING to do with bicarbonate ions or carbonate ions, according to the SECRET "chemist". Because "carbonate is not a chemical", and neither is bicarbonate. Say it again, everybody. "Carbonate is not a chemical!"

The SECRET "chemist" teaches us that "Water itself is a buffer for acid".

Still trying to figure out what a buffer is, eh? I already told you multiple times. So have others.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, yes, you told us multiple times what a "buffer" is! WATER ITSELF IS A BUFFER FOR ACID, remember?

What real scientists, including MYSELF call a "buffer" is the conjugate base of a weak acid. Carbonate ion, for example, is a very good pH buffer. Water is not.

Don't forget, CARBONATE IS NOT A CHEMICAL! But carbonate ion is still an important pH buffer that is getting depleted by ocean "acidification".

The SECRET "chemist" will never reveal his sources for absolute truth in science.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, yes, you told us multiple times what a "buffer" is! WATER ITSELF IS A BUFFER FOR ACID, remember?

What real scientists, including MYSELF call a "buffer" is the conjugate base of a weak acid. Carbonate ion, for example, is a very good pH buffer. Water is not.

Don't forget, CARBONATE IS NOT A CHEMICAL! But carbonate ion is still an important pH buffer that is getting depleted by ocean "acidification".

The SECRET "chemist" will never reveal his sources for absolute truth in science.

True Scotsman fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies.
Carbonate is not a chemical. It can't be 'depleted'.
Water is a buffer.

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

YARP

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

YARP

YARP?

Can you cite your SOURCES?

YARP?

YARP!!!

FLARP, you sleazy little piece of yarp!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

You don't get to quote everyone.

YARP

YARP?

Can you cite your SOURCES?

YARP?

YARP!!!

FLARP, you sleazy little piece of yarp!

YARP

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

RQAA

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

RQAA

You won't answer because you don't even know what a "chemist" IS.

You won't answer because you DO know what a "troll" is.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
PRAY

PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY YARP PRAY

PRAY PRAY PRAY

YARP

Into the Night, would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "Internet troll" that does NOT describe YOU?

Would you be willing to provide a definition for the term "chemist" that does NOT describe ME?

RQAA

You won't answer because you don't even know what a "chemist" IS.

You won't answer because you DO know what a "troll" is.

YARP. RAAA.

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Then put this on youtoob and get paid

Dopey

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"It is not possible for pH to be less than 1" - Into the Night

You heard it here first, everyone! NOT possible for pH to be less than 1...

For reasons unexplained, MOST pH scales display the range from 0-14.

Does ANYONE believe Into the Night got better than a "C" in high school chemistry?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Proof that even GOOGLE is a more competent "chemist" than Into the Night.

Ask Google the following question:

"What is the pH of a 1.0 M (molar) solution of hydrochloric acid?"

Google's answer is unambiguous and succinct.

Google says: "The pH of a 1.0 M solution of hydrochloric acid is 0."

Google = smart.
Into the Night = dumbass who pretends to be a "chemist".

It is not possible for pH to be less than 1.
Chemistry is not a website or search engine.
Attempted proof by void.

I already know you have no understanding of pH. You don't have to keep proving it.

So, are you now digging in and standing by your assertion that "It is not possible for pH to be less than 1"?

Who could ever have any doubt that you really ARE a "chemist"?

Science is not Google. Google is not a chemical. Google probably isn't God. I am not Google. Google isn't even a "chemistry", but it provides information about chemistry that tends to be very accurate.

Question for Google:

"Is the carbonate ion a 'chemical' or a 'class' of chemicals?"

Google's answer: "The carbonate ion (CO3, 2-) is a specific POLYATOMIC ION, but 'carbonate' also refers to a broad class of compounds (salts/esters) containing that ion, making it both a SPECIFIC CHEMICAL ENTITY and a category for many substances like limestone, soda ash, and even some organic compounds (carbonates)."

A follow up question for Google:

"What do water chemists mean when they refer to 'carbonate' in solution?"

Google says: "In water chemistry, the term 'carbonate' in solution refers to the various species that exist in the equilibrium system involving carbonic acid, bicarbonate ions, and carbonate ions. These species are crucial in determining the pH, alkalinity, and buffering capacity."

Also known as "the carbonate system" or "the CaCO3 system", it regulates pH AND alkalinity (not the same as pH)

Google gets the chemistry right. Into the Night doesn't get the chemistry at all.

Another dead thread being kept on life support

This thread is so "dead" it picked up more than a thousand new "views" in less than a week.

Swan, I'm sure that Into the Night is very grateful for your support.

Like so many others, you challenged me in his defense. You answered the question "Does anyone believe ITN is a 'chemist'?" with spirited praise for the competence he displays with his explanations for chemistry-related questions.

Then put this on youtoob and get paid

Dopey

I could try, but I'll never be able to get rich like you.

I don't have the kind of super genius IQ=130 that makes it possible to buy stock that increases in value over time.

I'm just not that good.

I know I would be rich if I were truly intelligent.

It wouldn't even matter if I knew whether or not frogs have lungs.