As in Science, As in Life
In a time of confusion and loss of faith in corrupt scientific authorities (and other bodies) the antidote is to look within ourselves and work on re-establishing our core values:
>Decide for yourself (be free from outside opinion).
>Decide for yourself (be objective in your conclusions).
>Decide for yourself (be true in your own beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be open to following the facts).
>Decide for yourself (be strong in defending your beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be resistant to blindly accepting fact-less statements).
>Decide for yourself (be free)
Those who attack you.
Those who mock you.
Those who cull you.
Those who control you.
Those who label you.
Do they represent you?
Or, do they represent themselves (in some form)?
Mental Enslavement.
The Great Awakening (‘Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
“Free thought” is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!
Q
Read more at qmap.pub
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
jerry krause
| #
Hi John,
You stated: “work on re-establishing our core values.” I ask: John, what are your core values in SCIENCE? What do you consider a fact to be in SCIENCE? Can we re-define fundamental words like evaporation, sublimation, and vapor? Or even words like gas, liquid, solid. Or temperature? Were all the previous scientists corrupt?
I just sent you an essay for you to possibly post. I would hope you would not post it if you, as editor of PSI, could not agree that Pauling possibly overlooked something obvious about the water molecule. We have the property of water vapor which we term the dew point temperature and which depends upon the number density of water molecules in the atmosphere.
But James McGinn and now Herb Rose ‘believe’ that what we call water vapor in the atmosphere cannot be individual water molecules. They ‘believe’ that single water molecules cannot individually be ejected from the surface of water unless the water is boiling and then they claim ALL these water molecules condense to the small droplets of which we see the evidence. But I claim they are making a mistake because they did not observed what I know I can observe. Which is that the cloud of water droplets usually quickly disappear as they mix with the atmosphere.
These two seem to forget that the boiling temperature of a pure liquid depends upon the external atmospheric pressure (or the pressure of some inert gas instead of ‘air’). I ask: How do they know that a liquid is boiling?
As I have been writing I have been hunting for a word which I did not find in your list.
” “Free thought” is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.”
Quantum physicists admit the many ideas of quantum mechanics are not logical. I have read that Euclidian Geometry and non-Euclidian Geometry are both logic but different. And Isaac Newton wrote that he did not understand the cause of gravity because he had ‘seen’ no evidence that suggested a cause. It was enough for him that he know what gravity could do. And even if quantum mechanics is not logical (understood?), the quantum physicists and chemists know that it seems to explain which is seen.
The word I could not find is: STANDARDS. What observed evidence do James and Herb offer to support their claim that individual water molecules do not evaporate from a liquid water surface at 25 degrees C and 1 atm pressure or sublime from a surface of ice at -20C.
In SCIENCE there is only one truth. A wrong idea can be proven to be wrong via observation or measurement. For I understand Einstein’s statement: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Or as Richard Feynman stated: “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I will give you my reasoning on why individual molecules of water do not become a gas at temperatures under 100C and then you can comment on that.
Temperature of a liquid is not a number but a range of values represented by a bell curve. Some molecules have more energy than the value some have less. If the upper limit of the range is at 100C that is not enough energy to cause the water to become a gas. You must extend the graph by 540 calories/degrees to reach the value where water becomes a gas. To me this is to great a variance from the value registered on the thermometer and would indicated that there are also molecules at -460 C (the difference being the heat of crystalization) and you would have water forming ice as well as water vapor. According to molecular weight water should be a gas at a temperature lower than liquid oxygen. It is the structure of the molecule that creates a force binding the molecules together and this force must be broken, by adding energy, to release individual water molecules.I picture water as large molecule composed of smaller molecules (instead of atoms) held together by ionic bonds. This is similar to salt, as you stated in a response to James. It takes a lot of energy to change solid salt into liquid salt and it takes a lot of energy to convert liquid water into a gas.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “Temperature of a liquid is not a number but a range of values represented by a bell curve.”
You have made a serious, fundamental, mistake. It is the kinetic energies of each individual water molecules which is represented by a bell curve. At one end of this bell curve is an individual molecule has zero kinetic energy (it is for a moment stationary, not moving) and at the other end of the bell curve is an individual molecule which has a maximum kinetic energy (it has for a moment the maximum speed of all the water molecules in a given sample).
Given this fundamental mistake I cannot not comment any further until your respond.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You are correct that the bell curve represents the kinetic energy of the water molecules while the temperature is the mean. The distinction seems inconsequential because when people speak temperature they give a value not the range of the bell curve.
As the average kinetic energy rises the whole bell curve shifts towards the !00C mark. I do not believe that any water molecule reaches absolute zero (stationary) but that when molecules collide they equalize their energy. If two molecules with the same velocity have a head on collision they recoil with their initial velocity they do not come to a stop (elasticity). If one molecule has greater velocity (more kinetic energy) when the molecules collide the energy equalizes and both molecules recoil with the same velocity (energy).
At a temperature of 100 C the ionic bonds forming the giant water molecule begin to break forming smaller structures made up of with fewer water molecules. Water will remain at 100C until all the bonds are broken and the individual water molecules are released as a gas. Before this occurs smaller nano droplets break from the main body of water carrying energy with them (evaporation).
The water will remain at 100 C until 540 calories/gram is added and all the bonds are broken converting the water to a gas.
Have a good day,
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Jerry,
You will notice that I also said that if the water is below the boiling point and a individual molecule has the energy to boil (temp 640 C) there should be a corresponding molecule in the bell curve at -460 C. This is an impossibility since absolute zero is -273 C and there is no negative energy.The point being that individual molecules cannot reach that much of a deviation from the norm.
Have a good day,
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dougie,
In billiards and snookers some of the energy from collisions is lost as heat. On the molecular level the energy is kinetic energy or heat. If the molecules did not recoil with the same velocity it would mean that energy has been lost or destroyed which violates the first law of thermodynamics. Not that you would have a problem with this since you seem to have developed a fifth force (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear) that is able to create energy. In order to have energy flow from a cooler object to a warmer object. in order for this to occur you must expend energy. A heat pump can function at over 100% efficiently if you want to cool your house in winter or heat it in summer otherwise energy must be expended to reverse the flow of heat. Your new force evidently allows heat to flow from a cooler object to a warmer one by creating energy. Your $10,000 dollars is safe since you stipulate that you must be disproved by the second law of thermodynamics and you have no idea what the law says.
I still maintain that in a gas the temperature is a function of density. I never claimed that for a liquid or solid. A cubic meter of water at sea level has 1,000,000 grams of mass. A cubic meter of atmosphere has 1.1 grams of mass. For every 1,000,000 molecules transferring heat to a thermometer in water there is 1.1 molecules transferring heat to the thermometer in the atmosphere. I guess you don’t believe in the universal gas law either since it says the density a gas is inversely proportional to the temperature. It seems you don’t believe that when you add heat to an unconfined gas it expands becoming less dense Since the atmosphere becomes less dense with altitude the gas molecules have more kinetic energy (hotter) the higher you go.
It must be nice to live in universe where you don’t have to comply with the laws that are the foundation of physics. .
You should really learn to read what people write instead of inventing their statements in your head.
James McGinn
| #
Herb, Jerry,
Thank you for your consideration of my revolutionary perspective on H2O.
Let me ask a rhetorical question as kind of a thought experiment. We can ask the question what are the comparative forces necessary to bisect the following two entities:
1) A droplet of twenty molecules being separated into two droplets of 10 molecules and
2) A droplet of two molecules being separated into two molecules of gaseous H2O (steam).
Before I do this, however, allow me to explain my improved understanding of H2O polarity and hydrogen bonding. In my model the magnitude of the polarity of H2O molecules is inversely related to the number of hydrogen bonds the molecule shares with other H2O molecules, up to four. Accordingly, an H2O molecule that shares three hydrogen bonds with other H2O molecules will only have 25% of its polarity. Two, 50%. One, 75%.
Now let’s consider our example. For the droplet with twenty the average polarity per molecule is probably around 15%. Why so low. Because there are still a large number of bonds remaining between the molecules thereof. There may be as many as 70 hydrogen bonds of a possible total of 80. So, total polarity per molecule will be, 1 – 70/80 = 15%. So, these are very weak bonds.
Now let’s consider two H2O molecules. They have 1 out of a possible of 4. So, 1 – 1/4 = 75%. So this bond is much stronger (and actually, if you tried to separate them the force would increase to 100% before separation is achieved.)
This describes why the boiling temperature of H2O is so high in comparison to its evaporation temperature.
Nothing in nature is more poorly understood by humankind than H2O.
The mistake that Pauling made is subtle. He mistakenly attributed the force of polarity to the asymmetry of the arrangement of oxygen and hydrogen on the H2O molecule. He failed to recognize that the force of polarity was actually a function of the electrical gradient created by the the arrangement of oxygen and hydrogen on the H2O molecule. What is the difference? The difference is psychological. The difference is that we have no trouble recognizing that an electrical gradient can be counteracted and even reversed by opposing electrical gradients brought by additional hydrogen bonds. This is the difference. And that is exactlly what happens. The more highly bonded are H2O molecules the more the force of polarity drops to zero. This explains all of the anomalies of H2O, including the very low viscosity of the most highly bonded form of H2O, this being liquid water.
This also explains why there is no contradiction between boiling and evaporation as long as we realize that evaporation involves extremely small droplets of liquid H2O and not H2O molecules magically defying their known boiling temperature. (This also means that clear, moist air in earth’s atmosphere is always heavier than dry air. And so, meteorology’s notion of moist air convection is pseudoscience.)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17078
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I wrote: “What observed evidence do James and Herb offer to support their claim that individual water molecules do not evaporate from a liquid water surface at 25 degrees C and 1 atm pressure or sublime from a surface of ice at -20C.” I made a mistake as I am prone to do. This was a question and I ended it with a period instead of a question mark.
In your comment you offered no evidence which was the focus of the question and this question was not intended to be “a rhetorical question as kind of a thought experiment” The SCIENCE I practice is not based upon thought experiments and words; it based upon actual, even if artificial, physical experiments, physical measurements of natural systems, and/or physical observations of natural systems..
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
“What observed evidence do James and Herb offer to support their claim that individual water molecules do not evaporate from a liquid water surface at 25 degrees C and 1 atm pressure or sublime from a surface of ice at -20C?”
JMcG:
Jerry, the evidence that supports our (mine and herb’s) belief is readily available as the H2O diagram. It represents hundreds of years of experimental data.
There simply is zero experimental data confirming the existence of gaseous H2O at temperatures below the known boiling temperature/pressure.
Surely you already know this. I’ve presented it to you at least ten times by now. And surely you realize the flaw of your own argument that the clarity of clear, moist air is evidence off the H2O therein being gaseous. Let’s go over it again:
Jerry:
They (James and Herb) ‘believe’ that single water molecules cannot individually be ejected from the surface of water unless the water is boiling and then they claim ALL these water molecules condense to the small droplets of which we see the evidence. But I claim they are making a mistake because they did not observed what I know I can observe. Which is that the cloud of water droplets usually quickly disappear as they mix with the atmosphere.
Jerry (in message above):
These two (James and Herb) seem to forget that the boiling temperature of a pure liquid depends upon the external atmospheric pressure (or the pressure of some inert gas instead of ‘air’).
James:
This is an absurd claim, Jerry. Neither of us has stated anything that is inconsistent with what is represented in the H2O phase diagram. It is yourself, all of meteorlogy, and the vast majority of the rest of humanity that have strayed from the known data to conjecture that H2O magically defies its known boiling temperature/pressure to become gaseous in earth’s atmosphere ignoring the fact that the H2O phase diagram clearly and unambiguously indicates that this is impossible. And the only rationale you can present to support your assertion is the fact that “a cloud of water droplets usually quickly disappear as they mix with the atmosphere.”
This is faulty reasoning. As I’ve stated hundreds of times by now, the invisibility of clear moist air is only evidence of liquid nanodroplets having a diameter smaller than the length of a photon. Invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the moisture in clear, moist air is gaseous.
Jerry, since I’ve explained this to you about 20 times and it never seems to stick let’s try chanting:
Repeat after me:
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is gaseous!
Keep it going, Jerry.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
What You Don’t get about science and truth
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17161
I ask: How do they know that a liquid is boiling?
jerry krause
| #
Hi James:
Repeat 8 times: The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is NOT gaseous molecules!
In 1966 R. C. Sutciffe, a meteorologist who at the end of WWII was Chief Meteorological Officer for the British forces in Europe, wrote (Weather and Climate, page 48): “The natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated [with water molecules]. As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relatively humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.”
And these minute particles cannot be pure water droplets because it is generally accepted that because of the extreme curvature of these minute droplets these minute water droplets have a vapor pressure far exceeding the vapor pressure of a flat liquid water surface. Which, by your claim, does not have a vapor pressure due to water molecules.
“Jerry, the evidence that supports our (mine and herb’s) belief is readily available as the H2O diagram. It represents hundreds of years of experimental data.”
James, why do I and others have to look at a diagram? Why cannot you simply describe the actual experimental data so that we might conclude for ourselves what its significance might be?
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
As a chemist I am sure you are familiar with the difference between a solution and an emulsion. To the average person the distinction is that an emulsion is cloudy, like milk, while a solution, like salt water is clear. This is a mistake because there are micro emulsions where the suspended particles are so small that it is clear and the only way to tell it is not a solution is by refraction or freezing and breaking the emulsion. The nano droplets of water in the atmosphere are clear and transmit light making their detection by sight even more difficult.
On the boxes you have constructed using glass and polyethylene film I am not sure what you are saying> As I understand it there are panels separated by air spaces, like multi panel windows, that act as insulation. Glass is a very good conductor of heat while plastic is not. Doesn’t,t the plastic film provide more insulation than the glass just as a quarter inch of plastic foam provides more insulation the stones used in masonry construction?
Have good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“This is a mistake because there are micro emulsions where the suspended particles are so small that it is clear and the only way to tell it is not a solution is by refraction or freezing and breaking the emulsion.” Specify identify the micro emulsion to which you refer so I can study it for myself before I can agree with what you merely claim to be fact.
Google Horace de Saussure hot box. From the experience of bending glass tubing I know that glass is not a good conductor of heat. This is a problem; you make statements which obviously are not an observed fact. Or, you fail to define what you consider what a good conductor of heat might be so I and others might know what you actually consider a good thermal conductor to be.
When I use the word film it refers to something that is very thin. My mistake in referring to plastic wrap used for temporary storing food.
Have a good day, jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
A good conductor of heat is something that readily takes heat from a warmer object such as metals, crystals, and water. A poor conductor does not readily accept heat such as wood, paint, oils, other other objects formed from covalent bonds. A mirror in a bathroom will be covered with condensation after a hot shower while other surfaces will have little condensation, even though they all are at the same temperature. The ice will form on the glass of your solar ovens and the windshield your car but not on the plastic or painted surfaces for the same reason. The reason is that glass is transferring heat away from the water droplets better than the organic compounds.
I looked up Horace de Saussure solar ovens as you suggested. I wonder why, knowing that sunlight decreases with distance and the sun is 200,000,000 km from Earth, he would believe that a difference of 10 km would make a difference in the amount of sunlight? I also dispute his contention that the reason it feels warmer at lower altitude is due to a difference in the amount of water and CO2.The reason it feels warmer is because there is more heat resulting from a denser atmosphere. No one disputes that there is more heat in a 100C pot of water than there is in a 100C oven. The feeling of warmth not only comes from the kinetic energy of the molecules striking you but also the number of molecules that energy transferred to.
An example of the micro emulsion I am referring to, with which you may be familiar would be PINE SOLVE which is a clear emulsion of pine oil in a soap solution. When diluted the cleaner breaks into a cloudy emulsion. They are made by mixing the pine oil with a fatty acid forming a solution. Caustic is then added saponifying the fatty acid into soap resulting in the pine oil droplets being of such a small size that are not visible. The pine oil does not depress the freezing point or refraction which would occur if it were part of the solution.
Jerry, I notice that you object to statements I or James make which is a good thing. I also notice that you berate John for publishing our thoughts which I consider ironic since you so often cite Galileo. He was forced to recant the results of his experiment, confess that he had the devil sitting on the smaller cannon ball, and then placed in confinement for disagreeing with the “correct” science. Do you believe you should be the science pope?
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Repeat 8 times: The invisibility of clear, moist air is not evidence that the H2O therein is NOT gaseous molecules!
JMcG:
It’s also not evidence that space aliens do not secretly live among us.
Jerry:
In 1966 R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist who at the end of WWII was Chief Meteorological Officer for the British forces in Europe, wrote (Weather and Climate, page 48): “The natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapor. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated [with water molecules]. As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relatively humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic.”
James McGinn:
Jerry, it would appear you are trying to argue that Sutcliffe was a idiot. I am begining to agree. Yes, it was idiotic for Sutcliffe to have assumed that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O. And it was equally stupid for him to have assumed that condensation nuclei is necessary enable condensation from gas, since there is zero evidence for the existence of gaseous H2O. Okay. You convinced me, Sutcliffe was an idiot. One can only wonder if he also believed that space aliens secretly live among us.
Jerry:
And these minute particles cannot be pure water droplets because it is generally accepted that because of the extreme curvature of these minute droplets these minute water droplets have a vapor pressure far exceeding the vapor pressure of a flat liquid water surface.
James McGinn:
So, now you are also saying that Sutcliffe was also confused about vapor pressure? Once again, I agree in that your explanation here suggests that he is drawing imaginary an exaggerated parallels, creating false drama where the evidence is very non-dramatic.
Sutcliffe:
Which, by your claim, does not have a vapor pressure due to water molecules.
James:
Now you are (desperately) resorting to the tactic of putting words in my mouth. In my defense, I never stated what you are suggesting I stated here.
Jerry (quoting James):
“Jerry, the evidence that supports our (mine and herb’s) belief is readily available as the H2O diagram. It represents hundreds of years of experimental data.”
James, why do I and others have to look at a diagram? Why cannot you simply describe the actual experimental data so that we might conclude for ourselves what its significance might be?
You don’t have to look at the data if you don’t want to, Jerry. Just be aware that your and Sutcliffe’s imagination is not a good substitute for empirical data.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17188
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
“It’s also not evidence that space aliens do not secretly live among us.” So why ask me to repeat something which makes no sense?
“Jerry, it would appear you are trying to argue that Sutcliffe was a idiot.” No, that is what you do when someone does not agree with you.
“So, now you are also saying that Sutcliffe was also confused about vapor pressure?” No, he was not. The confused one must have been Kelvin–The Kelvin equation describes the change in vapour pressure due to a curved liquid–vapor interface, such as the surface of a droplet. The vapor pressure at a convex curved surface is higher than that at a flat surface. (Wiki and many other references)
“You don’t have to look at the data if you don’t want to, Jerry. Just be aware that your and Sutcliffe’s imagination is not a good substitute for empirical data.” I just asked for the empirical data. What is it????
Have a good day,l Jerry
James McGinn
| #
James:
It’s also not evidence that space aliens do not secretly live among us.”
Jerry:
So why ask me to repeat something which makes no sense?
James:
You have failed to offer any dispute of what I asked you to repeat.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16471
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“This is a mistake because there are micro emulsions where the suspended particles are so small that it is clear and the only way to tell it is not a solution is by refraction or freezing and breaking the emulsion.” Specify identify the micro emulsion to which you refer so I can study it for myself before I can agree with what you merely claim to be fact.
Google Horace de Saussure hot box. From the experience of bending glass tubing I know that glass is not a good conductor of heat. This is a problem; you make statements which obviously are not an observed fact. Or, you fail to define what you consider what a good conductor of heat might be so I and others might know what you actually consider a good thermal conductor to be.
When I use the word film it refers to something that is very thin. My mistake in referring to plastic wrap used for temporary storing food.
Have a good day, jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb and James, James and Herb,
Sutcliffe and I accept that the atmosphere must contain particles upon which water molecules can condense because the atmosphere has never been observed to be supersaturated with water molecules. I have recently written this to you and somewhat Forgotten it because you both seem to not acknowledge as it seems it is your ‘argument’ that because there are these particles (including impure water droplets) that there cannot be any individual water molecules in the atmosphere.
Hence, my question: What is your observed evidence that they are no individual water molecules in the atmosphere????
The sky is blue because the many tiny nitrogen, oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, etc. molecules more strongly scatter blue light (which our eyes can detect) but they, according to this scattering theory more strongly must scatter the UV radiation with shorter (than blue light) according to this scattering theory which predicts they scatter the longer wavelength colors which our eyes can detect.
But then there is this light evidence we term twilight. We see colored skies in the morning before sunrises and in the evening after the sun has set. Twilight must be scattered radiation also. But via a different scattering theory which accepts there are particles in the earth’s atmosphere which are far larger than gas molecules.
To my knowledge, Richard Feynman is the only one who has attempted to theoretically reason this other scattering theory of ‘large’ particles. Which scattering has long been termed the Tyndall effect of the emulsions to which Herb refers.
Herb, you just wrote: “Jerry, I notice that you object to statements I or James make which is a good thing. I also notice that you berate John for publishing our thoughts which I consider ironic since you so often cite Galileo. He was forced to recant the results of his experiment, confess that he had the devil sitting on the smaller cannon ball, and then placed in confinement for disagreeing with the “correct” science. Do you believe you should be the science pope?”
“He [Galileo] was forced to recant the results of his experiment, confess that he had the devil sitting on the smaller cannon ball, and then placed in confinement for disagreeing with the “correct” science.” Do you really claim that what Galileo disagreed with was “correct” science? He had observed with his telescope that four of Jupiter’s larger satellites orbited Jupiter. He observed that the planet Venus had phases as it orbited the sun just as our moon had phases as it orbited the earth. None of these observations was consistent with Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe in which the earth stood still (do not orbit, did not revolve).
Do I believe I should be the science pope? John asks people to peer-review what others have reasoned. By this I believe, but do not know, that John considers there could be something wrong about which these authors have written. For in science we can never prove an idea to be right, but we can refer to experimental results or observations which prove an idea wrong. I ask James and you for observed evidence that the atmosphere does not contain individual water molecules. To date James claims there is some but he does identify what these observations of the ‘natural’ atmosphere are. And neither have you. So because you or James do not go away until you can offer some actual evidence to support your unique claim, John should understand that you must not be practicing the SCIENCE that Galileo practiced as he proved some of Aristotle’s reasoned ideas wrong.
I must add: Galileo made a mistake as he refused to accept that Tycho Brahe’s careful astronomical measurements and Kepler’s analysis of these measurements proved that the orbits of the planets were not perfect circle as Galileo reasoned they ‘had to be’.
Yes, I believe that John is making a mistake for allowing you and James “repeat and repeat” your ‘unique’ ideas. Once or twice is sufficient. Otherwise, it suggests that John and PSI supports your methods. Yes, he allows everyone with an unique idea to share the idea with the world. But he recognizes there needs to be peer review to eliminate endless arguments not based upon supporting evidence which can never prove an idea is actually correct.
Since I have learned upon all the observed meteorological measurements which have been made during the past 25 years, I try to concentrate on trying to understand their implications relative to weather and climate.
But I will not permit PSI readers be confused as to what good SCIENCE needs to be. Based solely upon observation and until a predicted idea based on reason is tested by observation (measurement), the idea is just an idea which has not yet survived the test.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
No I don’t believe that the science of Aristotle was right. The reason for the quotation marks is to indicate that the correct science at the time was not right. Science knowledge is never settled but it is always defended by those who believe and have a vested interest in the current beliefs.
Your belief that because water has never been observed to form without a particle on which to condense means that it can’t occur is an unwarranted extrapolation of limited observation. I can assume you do not believe in atoms, subatomic particles, and other theories unsupported by observation. Which of Feynman’s strings have you observed? According to you the stratosphere and upper troposphere are filthy with particles since that is where the droplets that form clouds form while the lower troposphere is free from particles.
All matter absorbs and radiates energy. The wave length emitted may be different than the wave length absorbed. This results in seeing different colors. A rainbow is the result of different wave lengths of light being emitted by water droplets after being absorbed then reflected from the interior of the sphere. Your statement on the scattering of light makes no sense when you read it. You state that blue light we can see is scattered and red light we can see is scattered. Perhaps the colors at sunrise and sunset are a result of the light passing through a thicker atmosphere and this is why both the sun and moon appear larger on the horizon even though their size doesn’t change.
Your belief in data without reason results in a recital of unconnected facts causing people to ask, after reading your articles, what you were talking about. Your article on Stonehenge starts with quoting Newton, then cite the flood story of Genesis, then wondering how the settlers of Briton got there, then asserts connection between the 56 pillars and the number of tides in a lunar month. If a house has 14 windows each with four panes of glass does that mean it was designed using the lunar tides? The number of tides in a month is truly useless information. Knowing when tides occur is useful information, knowing how many occur is trivia. When done reading thearticle my response was what does this got to do with anything.
Reporting various data and citing what past “experts” said is not science. Science is about detecting common pattern’s that connect different data, like a falling object and a planet orbiting, that lead to an explanation or reason for these occurrences. By denying the use of reason to connect data you are not a scientist but a science historian.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi James and Herb,
You have called my attention to the heat capacity of liquid water and I believe Richard Feynman’s analysis of elastic and inelastic collisions seemed to contradict how I proposed that a positive sodium ion could be relatively more strongly bonded to a water molecule via an unshared pair of the oxygen’s negative electrons instead of the water molecule’s electrical dipole because the two polar covalent bonds between the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms.
Maybe this does not well define the problem I have been pondering. Given inelastic collisions between water molecules in the gas phase, there is no way two water molecules could be ‘joined’ to move a single condensed molecule of two water molecules. Which was the reason that Sutcliffe and other meteorologists had to accept, because of Wilson’s cloud chamber experiments which demonstrated that if the condensation nuclei were removed from the air that the air could become supersaturated with water molecules.
I ask: What is the difference between water molecules in the air and water molecules in liquid water at the same temperature? My answer is: No difference except for the difference between a water molecules mean free path between collisions. This is if we assume most all collisions to inelastic. But as I ponder further; there is one obvious big difference. The liquid has a surface of its own and the air (gas) does not. And then there is the matter of density, a liquid can only fill a container to a specific level because of gravity and the gas normally fills its container uniformly (at a first approximation) if we limit the size of the container.
This thing we call a surface is very important because only the molecules at the surface are not ‘surrounded’ by like molecules. Only these molecules can escape from the liquid without first colliding with other molecules of the liquid. In chemistry class I was taught that only the molecules on the surface with the greater than average kinetic energy could escape (evaporate) from the liquid. Which left the liquid with a slightly less average kinetic energy. Hence, the liquid’s temperature was slightly less. And the evidence offered for this reasoning was to climb out of a warm shower at say 98.6F (body temperature) into a room whose temperature is a nice warm 80F with a relative humidity of 30%. You suddenly feel cold as you observe the water ‘dry’ from your skin.
How would you explain this common experience that most people have had? Does the strength of attraction between water molecules in liquid water have anything to do with feeling cold?
The attraction between atoms in molecules or the attraction of molecules in liquids is potential energy just as the attraction of molecules in the atmosphere to the earth’s surface is gravitational potential energy.
Finally I see. The greater the gravitation energy the more work needs be done to lift something from the earth’s surface. Hence the greater the potential energy of attraction the more work needs to be done to separate molecules from each other. So what happens as the liquid water is heated and its temperature increases. Its density decreases indicating that liquid molecules are being separated a little but this has little to do with evaporation.
However, James reviews that water molecules are unique and the density of pure liquid water begins decrease as this water is cooled below 4.18C. What I have never read him as stating is what happens if the plastic wrap is placed inside a glass beaker so the liquid water does not contact the glass beaker and the liquid water cools right through its reported freezing temperature without any ice being formed. Of course, Herb has just reviewed a difference between the plastic wrap and glass, relative to water molecules, which explains why the liquid water supercools instead of freezing at 0C.
It would be a wonderful demonstration to observe what would happen if a hydrometer (an instrument for determining the specific gravity of a liquid, commonly consisting of a graduated tube weighted to floatupright in the liquid whose specific gravity is being
measured.) was also wrapped with plastic wrap and floated in the beaker of water. Along with a thermometer whose lower limit was at least -40C. Which beaker etc. was placed in a cooler with dry ice (temperature -78.5C). For Sutcliffe stated at some temperature before -40C the supercooled liquid water should begin to freeze. However, he does not describe what will be seen to occur when the water finally begins to freeze. But chemists are familiar what happens (is seen) when the solute of a super-saturated solution begins to crystalize. And I have no idea of how the density (specific gravity) of the surpercooled water will change as it cooled below 0C. I only know of the tables of water vapor pressure how its vapor pressure changes as it cools below 0C.
In fact I can imagine a doctoral research project testing the possible influences of condensation nuclei upon the possible temperature at which crystallization (freezing) occurs. But first a student must do a literature search to establish that the experiment has not been done before and actually reported in a scientific journal with some respected standards.
For a while I was discouraged with where our dialogue was going. But now I thank you both for prodding me beyond where I had not gone before.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
You have called my attention to the heat capacity of liquid water
James:
Right. And I explain it here:
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
Jerry:
and I believe Richard Feynman’s analysis of elastic and inelastic collisions . . .
James:
As explained, hydrogen bonds in water are inherently elastic. See link above for details.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Hydrogen Bonds Neutralize H2O Polarity
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16798
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Sutcliffe and I accept that the atmosphere must contain particles upon which water molecules can condense because the atmosphere has never been observed to be supersaturated with water molecules.
James:
Have you not already thoroughly established Sutcliffe as a superstition believing goon? Why do you keep dropping his name and telling us what you and he agree upon? It would seem you are trying to draw attention away from the fact that neither you nor Sutcliffe can explain why you have formed such a firm belief based on such obviously anecdotal evidence? Or it is as if you are trying to justify your own low scientific standards by associating your thinking with that of Sutcliffe?
Sutcliffe believed what Sutcliffe believed because at that time and place in the history of science everybody believed what Sutcliffe believed. There is nothing hard to understand about this at all.
Jerry:
I have recently written this to you and somewhat Forgotten it because you both seem to not acknowledge as it seems it is your ‘argument’ that because there are these particles (including impure water droplets) that there cannot be any individual water molecules in the atmosphere.
James:
So, instead of addressing my actual argument you want to dispute what I “seem” to be saying? This is a strawman tactic. Can you explain why you insist on putting words in people’s mouths and putting thoughts in their heads. Why not address the words I have actually presented and stop with your intellectually dishonest argumentive tactics?
Jerry:
Hence, my question: What is your observed evidence that they are no individual water molecules in the atmosphere????
James:
As I’ve explained multiple times now, my thinking on this issue is based on the H2O phase diagram. How do you feel about the fact that my thinking is consistent with the H2O phase diagram and yours is inconsistent with the H2O phase diagram? I mean, specifically, how embarrassed are you with the fact that the H2O phase diagram does not substantiate your belief in the existence of gaseous H2O at the ambient temperatures?
Jerry:
The sky is blue because the many tiny nitrogen, oxygen, water, carbon dioxide, etc. molecules more strongly scatter blue light (which our eyes can detect) but they, according to this scattering theory more strongly must scatter the UV radiation with shorter (than blue light) according to this scattering theory which predicts they scatter the longer wavelength colors which our eyes can detect.
But then there is this light evidence we term twilight. We see colored skies in the morning before sunrises and in the evening after the sun has set. Twilight must be scattered radiation also. But via a different scattering theory which accepts there are particles in the earth’s atmosphere which are far larger than gas molecules.
To my knowledge, Richard Feynman is the only one who has attempted to theoretically reason this other scattering theory of ‘large’ particles. Which scattering has long been termed the Tyndall effect of the emulsions to which Herb refers.
James:
Jerry, once again you are just overanalogizing. You are drawing imaginary parallels between colors in the sky and the moisture in the atmosphere to no good effect.
Jerry:
Herb, you just wrote: “Jerry, I notice that you object to statements I or James make which is a good thing. I also notice that you berate John for publishing our thoughts which I consider ironic since you so often cite Galileo. He was forced to recant the results of his experiment, confess that he had the devil sitting on the smaller cannon ball, and then placed in confinement for disagreeing with the “correct” science. Do you believe you should be the science pope?”
“He [Galileo] was forced to recant the results of his experiment, confess that he had the devil sitting on the smaller cannon ball, and then placed in confinement for disagreeing with the “correct” science.” Do you really claim that what Galileo disagreed with was “correct” science? He had observed with his telescope that four of Jupiter’s larger satellites orbited Jupiter. He observed that the planet Venus had phases as it orbited the sun just as our moon had phases as it orbited the earth. None of these observations was consistent with Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe in which the earth stood still (do not orbit, did not revolve).
Do I believe I should be the science pope? John asks people to peer-review what others have reasoned. By this I believe, but do not know, that John considers there could be something wrong about which these authors have written. For in science we can never prove an idea to be right, but we can refer to experimental results or observations which prove an idea wrong.
James:
My thinking is 100% consistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase diagram. Your thinking is not. Instead, your thinking requires your audience to pretend that gaseous H2O can exist at temperatures far below what has ever been detected in the laboratory (as indicated on the H2O phase diagram). You can’t explain why you believe what you believe other than to drop names of other people who have made the same conceptual error that has lead you to your false belief. None of you pretenders can explain why you are so sure you are right. None of you!
Jerry:
I ask James and you for observed evidence that the atmosphere does not contain individual water molecules.
James:
Right. And I conceded that I have none. Likewise, you have conceded that you have no observed evidence that it does contain individual molecules of H2O (gaseous H2O). Right? Surely you don’t deny that you have failed to produce any evidence that gaseous H2O exists in earth’s atmosphere at ambient temperatures? Does John acknowledge your failure in this respect? I assure you, we will never know. Because John and the rest of you pretentious “slayers” have an emotional attachment to traditional thinking. Pseudoscientists always keep their cards close to their chest. Real scientists have no need for these tactics.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Why Are Storms Wet?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16841
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Finally the water phase diagram upon which you must be basing all your ‘understanding’. Pressure was plotted on a linear vertical scale from 0 to 50 Mpa (1 megapascal [MPa] = 9.8692 atm [atmosphere]). Hence the kelvin temperature linear scale ranged from 273K up to maybe 800K . Of the many water phase diagrams inspected this was the only one I found and when I went on to another I could not get back to these previous one. (hence the uncertainty of the maximum values).
However with the linear pressure scale and its unit, the pressure was very, very, near zero at 373K, the boiling temperature of water at 1atm pressure. Hence this phase diagram did not even include any information about the solid phase and obviously suggests there is zero atmospheric pressure at 273K or nearly so at even 373K.
If you really do not understand the distortion created by this the linear pressure scale and the large pressure unit be used, I am sure I cannot explain it to you.
But I do ask you to look at the many diagrams which do not have linear scales for pressures and see that the gas phase extends from the critical temperature down to the end of the line between the solid and gas phase.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
If you really do not understand the distortion created by this the linear pressure scale and the large pressure unit be used, I am sure I cannot explain it to you.
James:
What do you think your inability to explain tells us about the difference between what you understand and what you believe you understand but really don’t understand?
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I wanted to acknowledge the importance of your comments about the difference of plastic wrap and glass which focused my attention so I could understand what I had been seeing about condensation on Horace’s (have trouble spelling his last name) hot boxes I have constructed and am observing. Which in turns explains Sutcliffe’s comment that the relative humidity of the atmosphere in which there is cloud is often measured to be well less than 100%.
For these droplets of cloud have to have something on their surfaces which ‘capture’ water molecules better than a pure water surface.
So, I will be sharing with you what I imagine is naturally occurring.
But thank you again for focusing my attention on what is observed fact and very important.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Glad I was able to help you withnyour efforts.
Have a good day,
Herb