Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #717358 > unrolled thread

Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:22 -0800
    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 04:04 -0800
      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:12 -0800
        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:53 -0800
          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:50 -0800
            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 13:56 -0800
              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo % <%> - 2018-12-11 15:05 -0700
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:19 -0800
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 23:43 +0100
                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-12 00:06 -0600
              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 14:29 -0800
                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 15:41 -0800
                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:14 -0800
                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:18 -0800
                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:24 -0800
                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 17:02 -0800
                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:45 -0800
                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-12 00:09 -0600
                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:19 -0800
                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:44 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 22:47 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 08:58 -0800
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 16:40 -0800
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 16:59 -0800
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 18:04 -0800
                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 22:38 -0800
                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-12 08:44 +0100
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 01:31 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 16:07 +0100
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 07:39 -0800
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 09:50 -0800
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 15:40 +0100
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo "Sir Gregory Hall,  Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-15 09:51 -0500
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-15 10:37 -0600
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo kensi <kkensinqton01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-15 11:56 -0500
                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 07:23 -0800
                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 20:16 +0100
                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:12 -0800
                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 00:09 +0100
                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 15:17 -0800
                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 17:54 +0100
                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 08:56 -0800
                                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 19:40 +0100
                                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 13:05 -0600
                                                    Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 11:32 -0800
                                                      Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-16 22:12 +0100
                                                        Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 13:32 -0800
                                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 15:24 -0800
                                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 03:13 +0100
                                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 19:12 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:46 +0100
                                                              Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 19:15 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 20:05 -0800
                                                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 22:16 +0100
                                                          Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-17 02:04 +0100
                                            Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-16 13:30 -0600
                                Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-14 09:02 -0600
                                  Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 07:33 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#717358 — Re: Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo

On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:47:51 AM UTC-8, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo
> 
> https://medium.com/@subhashkak1/newtons-many-dark-secrets-503bb0f7c365
> 
> Isaac Newton’s Many Dark Secrets
> 
> Isaac Newton received much fame in his lifetime. He was professor of 
> mathematics at Cambridge University, served two terms as Member of 
> Parliament, became Master of the Royal Mint, and President of the Royal 
> Society. As Master of the Mint he was in charge of issuing new currency 
> and cracking down on counterfeiters; he took this job very seriously and 
> about two dozen counterfeiters were executed under his watch.
> 
> He was hailed for his part in the unfolding scientific revolution by 
> laying the foundations of classical mechanics in his book Philosophiæ 
> Naturalis Principia Mathematica (or simply Principia), first published 
> in 1687, and as a co-developer of infinitesimal calculus.
> 
> He used the law of universal gravitation to explain planetary motion and 
> terrestrial phenomena such as tides, built the first practical 
> reflecting telescope, and wrote an influential book on light. The 
> Principia was praised for presenting a new view of the physical world as 
> clockwork, governed by physical laws.
> 
> We are not interested here in his dispute with Robert Hooke regarding 
> priority in the discovery of universal gravitation law since, in the 
> words of the historian Ofer Gal, the assumption of “inverse proportion 
> between gravity and the square of distance was rather common and had 
> been advanced by a number of different people for different reasons” by 
> 1660s.
> 
> He had a dispute with Leibniz regarding priority in the invention of 
> calculus. Leibniz gave an account of his methods in 1684 and Newton did 
> not describe his method fully until 1714, but his supporters claimed 
> that the Principia had implicitly used calculus.
> 
> Newton’s great contribution was a synthesis of ideas into a theory to 
> explain experimental results. By not wishing to go beyond the theory, he 
> made his presentation elegant and sparse. Thus in gravitational 
> attraction, he saw no need to explain how action at a distance worked.
> 
> Some claim that he saw the place of God in the initial conditions, in 
> reality he believed that as an agent God could intervene in process. He 
> said: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot 
> explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows 
> all that is or can be done.” Undoubtedly he was aware that the clockwork 
> universe was incomplete for it did not explain human beings or other agents.
> 
> Alchemy
> 
> His alchemy and occult studies became widely known only in the last 
> century. He personally thought that these studies were far more 
> important than his mathematics, which explains why he carried on this 
> work for nearly thirty years, although it was kept largely hidden from 
> his contemporaries.
> 
> This work, to our modern eyes, is so thoroughly silly so as to be beyond 
> ridicule. How could he have spent so much time on ideas that made no 
> sense, which sages from the ancient world thousands of years prior to 
> him would have laughed at?
> 
> After studying Newton’s alchemical works, the economist John Maynard 
> Keynes declared at the tercentenary of Newton’s birth in 1942 that he 
> “was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the 
> magicians.” But if one looks dispassionately at his record one finds 
> that he was less a magician in his occult preoccupations and more of a 
> dolt who was even out of touch with his contemporary scientists and 
> philosophers.
> 
> Philosophers’ stone
> 
> He believed he found a recipe for the philosophers’ stone, a substance 
> that could turn base metals like iron and lead into gold and also help 
> humans achieve immortality. He thought the philosophers’ stone was 
> located at the center of the Earth and this created first what he called 
> progenitors (that he believed were like spirits) of precious metals. The 
> transmutation of minerals took place at the center of the Earth and from 
> there they migrated to the crust.
> 
> He wrote: “Indeed, these spirits meet with metallic solutions and will 
> mix with them. And when they are in a state of motion and vegetation, 
> they will putrefy [and] destroy the metallic form and convert [it] into 
> spirits similar to themselves. Which can then ascend again and thus a 
> perpetual circulation of metals takes place.”
> 
> Communication with angels and Day of Judgment
> 
> He believed in angels and the possibility of communicating with them. 
> Perhaps this is why he believed he had been specially chosen by God for 
> the understanding of Biblical scripture. He wrote a forensic analysis of 
> the Bible in an effort to decode divine prophecies.
> 
> This is what he thought happens on the Day of Judgment: “When the saints 
> & martyrs rise from the dead it is to be conceived that they converse 
> only with one another, & appear not to mortals unless perhaps upon very 
> extraordinary occasions, for the children of the resurrection are as the 
> Angels in heaven. And after the thousand years are expired the rest of 
> the dead live again small & great & the books are opened & all the dead 
> are judged according to their works & whoever is not found written in 
> the book of life is cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.”
> 
> He added: “This day of judgment, the ancient of days sits on a great 
> white throne & the earth & heaven flee away & there appears a new heaven 
> & new earth & God makes all things new & a new Jerusalem comes down from 
> God out of heaven which for its power & dominion & glory & righteousness 
> is compared to a city of gems & the nations do bring their glory into 
> it, & they reign for ages of ages.”
> 
> Chronology and End of the World
> 
> Biblical chronology is a favorite subject for those who accept a literal 
> reading of the book. Bishop James Ussher (1581 –1656) analyzed Biblical 
> accounts to establish the time and date of the creation as around 6 pm 
> on 22 October 4004 BCE. The passage of time from the Creation to the 
> Exodus is measured by adding the ages of the patriarchs at the birth of 
> their firstborn sons and the reigns of the kings of Israel.
> 
> Newton took these chronological studies seriously. His book The 
> Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended appeared posthumously in 1728. In 
> a manuscript he wrote in 1704, he used the epistle ascribed to Barnabas 
> which says that “in six thousand years shall all things be accomplished” 
> to conclude that the world was going to come to an end in 2060.
> 
> This is what Newton wrote: “So then the time times & half a time are 42 
> months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to 
> a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive 
> year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of 
> [long-] lived kingdoms the period of 1260 days, if dated from the 
> complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end 2060. It may end 
> later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner.”
> 
> He later revised the date for the end of the world to 2016.
> 
> He took great earthquakes as signs of disapproval from God. He thought 
> that God had created caves in the mountains to hide idols of the 
> non-believers.
> 
> He was also a believer in numerology and he argued that “the number of 
> the Beast 666 is to be counted in such manner as the number of God’s 
> servants 144000 was counted.”
> 
> Newton’s successors
> 
>  From our vantage point, how to explain Newton’s alchemy? It tells us 
> something about the human mind for if Newton chose to see only certain 
> things and ignore others that is because in the words of Henri Bergson: 
> “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.”
> 
> Newton’s approach to the world didn’t die with his passing. The idea of 
> machine-like interaction of humans and classes led to the ideology of 
> Marx and the many tyrannies it has engendered. Our contemporary elites 
> who are seeking world government based on neoliberal economics seem to 
> be driven by similar ideas.
> 
> In the sciences, those who believe that artificial intelligence will 
> lead to conscious machines belong to this same mind-set.

Interesting.

He was also instrumental in one of the greatest misconceptions of H2O that has infected the natural sciences:
Isaac Newton was a human being
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#717395

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:47:51 AM UTC-8, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Isaac Newton Is a Lunatic Weirdo

Since Newton died over 290 years ago, the correct verb would be "was", you
blithering idiot.

<snip brain damaged rants>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717661

> Interesting.
> 
> He was also instrumental in one of the greatest misconceptions of H2O that has infected the natural sciences:
> Isaac Newton was a human being

Far more god than man. Divinely blessed, as a man.

> https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306

Followed that above link. Newton was mentioned there, as a human with foibles, but there was no quoting of whatever he may have said about water vapour in the article; nor in the link in that article. Avogadro was mentioned instead. 

McGinn claims in that article that in the evaporative state H2O cannot be mono-molecular. This is an assertion. Fair enough. I don't know what experiment has been done or can be done to validate this assertion.

There is not the slightest reason to belittle Newton, but that seems to be the fashion these days, following Hawking.  Newton lived before the oxygen and nitrogen were discovered; before the atomic theory was postulated and modern chemistry started as a result; he had no clue about electricity let alone electromagnetic waves... one judges Newton by the state of the physics before him, and after him.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717672

McGinn claims in that article that in the evaporative state H2O cannot be mono-molecular. This is an assertion. Fair enough. I don't know what experiment has been done or can be done to validate this assertion. 

Are you suggesting we have no data on the boiling temperature of h2O?

Use your brain Arindam. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717725

Okay so tell us why H2O in the air below 100 deg must be mono molecular. That is the only issue. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717733

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:53:53 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Okay so tell us why H2O in the air below 100 deg must be mono molecular. That is the only issue.

Who says this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717734

Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717735

On 2018-12-11 2:56 p.m., Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted

The molecular units of a liquid, like those of solids, are in direct 
contact, but never for any length of time and in the same locations. 
Whereas the molecules or ions of a solid maintain the same average 
positions, those of liquids are continually jumping and sliding to new 
ones, giving liquids something of the mobility of gases. From the 
standpoint of chemistry, this represents the best of two worlds; rapid 
chemical change requires intimate contact between the agents undergoing 
reaction, but these agents, along with the reaction products, must be 
free to move away to allow new contacts and further reaction to take 
place. This is why so much of what we do with chemistry takes place in 
the liquid phase.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717737

Was that an answer to my question?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717746

% wrote:
^
Who?

> On 2018-12-11 2:56 p.m., Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular 
>> as you asserted

What does this even mean?

> The molecular units of a liquid, like those of solids, are in direct 
> contact, but never for any length of time and in the same locations. 
> Whereas the molecules or ions of a solid maintain the same average 
> positions, those of liquids are continually jumping and sliding to new 
> ones, giving liquids something of the mobility of gases. From the 
> standpoint of chemistry, this represents the best of two worlds; rapid 
> chemical change requires intimate contact between the agents undergoing 
> reaction, but these agents, along with the reaction products, must be 
> free to move away to allow new contacts and further reaction to take 
> place. This is why so much of what we do with chemistry takes place in 
> the liquid phase.

This appears to be a long-winded answer whose author carefully avoids
answering the question put to them.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717831

On 12/11/2018 4:43 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> % wrote:
> ^
> Who?
> 
>> On 2018-12-11 2:56 p.m., Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular 
>>> as you asserted
> 
> What does this even mean?
> 
>> The molecular units of a liquid, like those of solids, are in direct 
>> contact, but never for any length of time and in the same locations. 
>> Whereas the molecules or ions of a solid maintain the same average 
>> positions, those of liquids are continually jumping and sliding to new 
>> ones, giving liquids something of the mobility of gases. From the 
>> standpoint of chemistry, this represents the best of two worlds; rapid 
>> chemical change requires intimate contact between the agents undergoing 
>> reaction, but these agents, along with the reaction products, must be 
>> free to move away to allow new contacts and further reaction to take 
>> place. This is why so much of what we do with chemistry takes place in 
>> the liquid phase.
> 
> This appears to be a long-winded answer whose author carefully avoids
> answering the question put to them.
> 

    looks like a cut and paste too

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717743

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.

Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.

Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717766

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> 
> Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.

What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?

> Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?

The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 

Is there anything else? Why cannot a single molecule of water at say 20degC in air not be regarded as a liquid? Or a solid for that matter? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717785

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> > 
> > Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
> 
> What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?

I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?

> > Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
> 
> The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 

Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717787

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:14:29 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> > > 
> > > Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
> > 
> > What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?
> 
> I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?

I missed it because the best (non-anecdotal) evidence was not presented, nor referred to any link.
 
> > > Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
> > 
> > The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 
> 
> Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?

Is that all you have got, the phase diagram of water? Nothing else? Let us be clear on this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717788

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:14:29 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> > > > 
> > > > Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
> > > 
> > > What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?
> > 
> > I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?
> 
> I missed it because the best (non-anecdotal) evidence was not presented, nor referred to any link.

Read upthread.




>  
> > > > Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
> > > 
> > > The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 
> > 
> > Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?
> 
> Is that all you have got,

This is all anybody has.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717798

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:24:33 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:14:29 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
> > > > 
> > > > What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?
> > > 
> > > I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?
> > 
> > I missed it because the best (non-anecdotal) evidence was not presented, nor referred to any link.
> 
> Read upthread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >  
> > > > > Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
> > > > 
> > > > The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 
> > > 
> > > Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?
> > 
> > Is that all you have got,
> 
> This is all anybody has.

Okay. 
The phase diagram shows that the state of water at say 20degC and 1 atm. p., is water.
We all agree.
Now take the phenomenon of evaporation.
How does this happen?
We know that things dry in wind, or heat. 
Wind means high energy nitrogen or oxygen atoms hitting a surface. Making an impact.
At the molecular level, one molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or even CO2 hits one molecule of water held as a liquid with the electrostatic forces of adhesion with other  water  molecules.
There is an impact, causing high temperature and pressure at the molecular level. At the molecular level, the temperature can exceed 100degC while the ambient pressure would be 1 atm. 

That is to say, that at the molecular level, upon impact, the impacted molecule of water has to be gaseous, as its temperature as a result of collision exceeds 100degC. This is entirely as per the phase diagram of water. 

It is, then, a molecule of steam, a gas, which has been released out of water into the air.

About the heat - that causes enhanced movement among the water molecules, and a particular impact could drive one molecule out of the water when the adhesive forces are less than the impact forces. Once again, a certain kind of collision can increase the local temperature at the molecular level, resulting in steam formation for that evicted molecule.

Then the question is, how long can the water or rather steam molecules remain mono-molecular. If it meets another molecule or set of molecules, adhesive forces will come into play and there will be a nano-droplet. 

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717807

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:02:58 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:24:33 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:14:29 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > > Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?
> > > > 
> > > > I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?
> > > 
> > > I missed it because the best (non-anecdotal) evidence was not presented, nor referred to any link.
> > 
> > Read upthread.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >  
> > > > > > Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 
> > > > 
> > > > Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?
> > > 
> > > Is that all you have got,
> > 
> > This is all anybody has.
> 
> Okay. 
> The phase diagram shows that the state of water at say 20degC and 1 atm. p., is water.
> We all agree.
> Now take the phenomenon of evaporation.
> How does this happen?

See the other thread you just started.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717833

On 12/11/2018 7:02 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:24:33 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:14:29 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>> Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?
>>>>
>>>> I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?
>>>
>>> I missed it because the best (non-anecdotal) evidence was not presented, nor referred to any link.
>>
>> Read upthread.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  
>>>>>> Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>> The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 
>>>>
>>>> Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?
>>>
>>> Is that all you have got,
>>
>> This is all anybody has.
> 
> Okay. 
> The phase diagram shows that the state of water at say 20degC and 1 atm. p., is water.
> We all agree.
> Now take the phenomenon of evaporation.
> How does this happen?
> We know that things dry in wind, or heat. 
> Wind means high energy nitrogen or oxygen atoms hitting a surface. Making an impact.
> At the molecular level, one molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or even CO2 hits one molecule of water held as a liquid with the electrostatic forces of adhesion with other  water  molecules.
> There is an impact, causing high temperature and pressure at the molecular level. At the molecular level, the temperature can exceed 100degC while the ambient pressure would be 1 atm. 
> 
> That is to say, that at the molecular level, upon impact, the impacted molecule of water has to be gaseous, as its temperature as a result of collision exceeds 100degC. This is entirely as per the phase diagram of water. 
> 
> It is, then, a molecule of steam, a gas, which has been released out of water into the air.
> 
> About the heat - that causes enhanced movement among the water molecules, and a particular impact could drive one molecule out of the water when the adhesive forces are less than the impact forces. Once again, a certain kind of collision can increase the local temperature at the molecular level, resulting in steam formation for that evicted molecule.
> 
> Then the question is, how long can the water or rather steam molecules remain mono-molecular. If it meets another molecule or set of molecules, adhesive forces will come into play and there will be a nano-droplet. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
> 

that is where McGinn gets lost,
the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717834

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 5:09:09 PM UTC+11, Sergio wrote:
> On 12/11/2018 7:02 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:24:33 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 4:18:36 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 11:14:29 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:41:32 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:29:47 AM UTC+11, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:56:20 PM UTC-8, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>>>> Okay let me rephrase, tell us why evaporated water in air at NTP must be multi molecular as you asserted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is that? How can you say that evaporated water is multi-molecular?
> >>>>
> >>>> I just answered that question: "Because that is what the best (non-anecdotal) evidence indicates." How did you miss it?
> >>>
> >>> I missed it because the best (non-anecdotal) evidence was not presented, nor referred to any link.
> >>
> >> Read upthread.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>  
> >>>>>> Why would we assume it is gaseous if all of the reliable evidence indicates otherwise?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reliable evidence as you have stated is the phase diagram of water. 
> >>>>
> >>>> Right.  It indicates liquid, not gas. Are you getting confused?
> >>>
> >>> Is that all you have got,
> >>
> >> This is all anybody has.
> > 
> > Okay. 
> > The phase diagram shows that the state of water at say 20degC and 1 atm. p., is water.
> > We all agree.
> > Now take the phenomenon of evaporation.
> > How does this happen?
> > We know that things dry in wind, or heat. 
> > Wind means high energy nitrogen or oxygen atoms hitting a surface. Making an impact.
> > At the molecular level, one molecule of nitrogen or oxygen or even CO2 hits one molecule of water held as a liquid with the electrostatic forces of adhesion with other  water  molecules.
> > There is an impact, causing high temperature and pressure at the molecular level. At the molecular level, the temperature can exceed 100degC while the ambient pressure would be 1 atm. 
> > 
> > That is to say, that at the molecular level, upon impact, the impacted molecule of water has to be gaseous, as its temperature as a result of collision exceeds 100degC. This is entirely as per the phase diagram of water. 
> > 
> > It is, then, a molecule of steam, a gas, which has been released out of water into the air.
> > 
> > About the heat - that causes enhanced movement among the water molecules, and a particular impact could drive one molecule out of the water when the adhesive forces are less than the impact forces. Once again, a certain kind of collision can increase the local temperature at the molecular level, resulting in steam formation for that evicted molecule.
> > 
> > Then the question is, how long can the water or rather steam molecules remain mono-molecular. If it meets another molecule or set of molecules, adhesive forces will come into play and there will be a nano-droplet. 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > 
> 
> that is where McGinn gets lost,
> the transition from lots of liquid droplets (hot or cold steam) into
> single molecules of water, which is invisable gas.

Other way around. Steam is single molecule water as gas. When these single molecules (rising from the spout of a kettle) unite to form liquid droplets, then yes they are called steam but that steam is water droplets. If you get scalded then the scalding will be done by the 100deg plus single molecules.

My point is that to get steam (single molecular water) we either heat the water or subject it to wind. Either way, the ejected molecule of water experiences a local 100degC+ for its eviction. It rises up fast till it mingles with other single molecules to form droplets, which then unite to form clouds, etc. When it cannot rise high as it is muggy upstairs, too many droplets up already, then fog or mist etc. are formed. That is also helped when there is no wind around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web