Re: Carbon source + oxygen = CO2
- From: r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:55:15 -0400
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:40:46 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
On Jun 25, 5:47 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:I must admit I felt exactly the same thing reading that post, POTM
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:55:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Darwin123
On Jun 24, 10:22 am,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
after several gratuitously high and mighty replies to an honest
question about people's views about CO2 came about on the Earth I went
away and contemplated taking a diamond ring dipping it into a bowl of
liquid oxygen. I'm wondering to what temperature and pressure I will
need to bring my Carbon source, the diamond ring, in order to make a
nice crater where my living room used to be.
Anyway, seriously, was it really that difficult for the clever in
their own minds plonkers that responded to my question to see that the
form of the Carbon really is an important factor if you expect me to
take these theories seriously.
So this brings us to, I expect, some kind of theory that Hydrogen,When you add salt to water, and stir it, the salt dissolves and
Oxygen and Carbon atoms were floating around in a disk around a
developing solar system right? Given that Hydrogen, Oxygen and >Carbon
all have very different weights my next problem is why they would be
hanging around at the same distance from the centre of the developing
solar system. Does that not strike anybody as a little odd?
spread through the entire cup. If you add sugar to water, the sugar
dissolves and spreads through the entire cup. You don't have to stir
it too hard. If you heat the water, the solute spreads faster through
the entire cup. Has this ever struck you as odd?
Note that the separate elements don't separate in solution. The
sodium and chlorine ions in salt don't separate out when you dissolve
salt in water. Yet, chlorine atoms are heavier than sodium atoms. The
carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms in sugar don't separate when you
dissolve sugar in water. Has this ever struck you as odd?
If you have no problem in understanding why substances stay
together in solution in your teacup, why do you have any trouble
understanding why they stayed together in the early universe?
Substances don't always separate due to differences in molecular
weight. In fact, they seldom do. If the elements are chemically bound
together, the chemical bonds stop them from separating in solution. If
the substances are stirred or heated strongly, the substances will
stay together in solution. If the molecules are in free fall, then the
molecules will stay together.
The real issue is the conditions under which substances will
separate. These conditions were not found in the gases that formed the
early solar system.
The substances in the dilute gas cloud were in free fall. There
was no gravity and no buoyancy to separate the elements. Elements
formed compounds with molecules. The molecules stayed in one piece
because of chemical bonds, except when there was a chemical reaction.
The chemical reactions did vary with temperature and pressure. So
there was separation of substances and phases in the formation of the
planets. However, these
There is some separation of elements due to the differences in
temperature. The substances of celestial objects within the asteroid
belt generally have higher melting and boiling points than the
substances outside the asteroid belt. The inner planets have rock, and
very little hydrogen. The outer planets have hydrogen, helium,
methane, and a lot of lighter elements. So there was some separation
of elements in the solar system. The outermost celestial bodies, the
comets, have high concentrations of water and methane. So the lighter
elements have tended to separate in the solar system.
The asteroid belt itself has a varying composition. The inner
asteroids have a high concentration of iron. The outer asteroids have
a low concentration of iron, but a high concentration of carbon and
hydrogen. The meteors that hit us generally are knocked out of the
asteroid belt by collision. Most of them are iron meteorites. Some of
them are stony meteorites, that contain a lot of carbon. This is
caused by the gradation of heat in the solar system. Note that there
is no sharp boundary between the two. There is a gradual shift of
concentration throughout the asteroid belt.
The effect is due to the condensation of these elements.
Generally, the lower the molecular weight the lower the boiling point
of the substance. This isn't an exact relationship, but it more or
less follows in our solar system. However, the weight relationship
between position and weight don't necessarily follow. You are being
biased by your experience with buoyancy.
Buoyancy is the effect that you are probably thinking of.
Buoyancy is what separates phases of different weight density in
liquids on earth. Buoyancy is a type of contact force that results
from differential pressure. In order to have this differential
pressure, one needs a contact force working in the opposite direction
of gravity. On also has to have objects taht are larger than the mean
free path of the particles.
In order for buoyancy to separate molecules, the substances have
to be cool enough so their gravitational potential difference is lower
than the average kinetic energy. This is why the gases in the sun
don't separate out into layers.
There is no buoyancy in free fall. Although substances in free
fall may have different inertial densities, there is no effective
weight in free fall. So in that disk, there was no differential
pressure. Furthermore, the pressure was very low and the temperature
of the gases pretty high.
In eager anticipation of having lots of insults, arrogance, slanderI do envision you being doused in salt water. Or maybe sugary
and all things bad instead of a serious answer hurled at me.
water. Or would you prefer rose water?
There is an incongruity in your comments that appears like
arrogance. Your question (doesn't this bother anyone) would seem to
imply that the reader doesn't notice such common things as oil
floating in water. Yet, it is apparent that you haven't noticed things
like sugar spreading through your tea.
So there is this temptation to dump the things you don't notice on
your head. This way, I can be sure that you will notice them.
Furthermore, you won't be able to claim that I made it all up.
I will practice restraint and civilized manners. Maybe offer you a
cup of tea. One lump or two?
Good post. Now we'll see how honest the OP is...
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
Just what exactly does everybody find *good* about a public
demonstration of an ignorance or deliberate knowing denial that NaCL
ionised and bonds with water molecules? I honestly couldn't bring
myself to read the rest when I saw in the first two lines such a poor
foundation to build the rest of his discussion on.
nomination notwithstanding. When I saw " The sodium and chlorine ions
in salt don't separate out when you dissolve salt in water" I had to
wonder where all this was coming from. I read further to convince
myself that it was a simple type, that sodium and chlorine (actually,
chloride) ions DO separate out but I didn't find any evidence of a
miswriting. When i saw the gist of the argument was to show that
atoms in a molecule don't separate out I realized that the entire post
had little to do with iaoiua's questions about somehow separate atoms
separating by weight in a gravitational field. Then when I saw the
POTM endorsements, I really had to wonder.
So, iaoua, this time (and this time ONLY) you seem to be right.
- Prev by Date: Re: Can endergonic reactions happen?
- Next by Date: Re: Can endergonic reactions happen?
- Previous by thread: Re: Carbon source + oxygen = CO2
- Next by thread: Re: Carbon source + oxygen = CO2