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

Groups > sci.physics > #683157 > unrolled thread

Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 10:40 -0700
    have I got it reversed? Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 11:20 -0700
      have I got it reversed? Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 13:34 -0700
        linear CO2, versus triangular CO2 (if it exists) and can stoma hint there are two types?? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 14:59 -0700
          other examples in chemistry where rate of reaction produces different geometries Re: linear CO2, versus triangular CO2 (if it exists) Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 17:21 -0700
            how could all chemists and physicist have missed two different types of CO2 // rate of reaction produces different geometries Re: linear CO2, versus triangular CO2 (if it exists) Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 19:18 -0700
              is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 21:34 -0700
                Re: is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 21:57 -0700
                  Re: is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 22:28 -0700
                    Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 01:35 -0700
                      Re: Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-02 09:18 -0400
                        Re: Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 13:06 -0700
                      Lewis structure in New Chemistry Re: Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 12:54 -0700
                        Lewis structure only useful for P orbital, not an octet but 6 Re: Lewis structure in New Chemistry Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 15:07 -0700
                          a density paradox of CO2 causing global warming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 19:19 -0700
                            surface area of CO2 Re: a density paradox of CO2 causing global warming Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 22:33 -0700
                              Two paradoxes of CO2-- too dense to be global warming gas, and, linear geometry is paradoxical Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 12:21 -0700
                    Re: is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 03:16 +0000
    Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-01 23:34 -0400
      Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-01 21:09 -0700
        Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-02 05:44 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#683157 — Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:26:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: what if all wild animals were gone tomorrow, could humanity
 survive? Re: Science Council Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:26:46 +0000

Re: what if all wild animals were gone tomorrow, could humanity survive? Re: Science Council Rules the World

Calcium is essential for plant growth and the bones of large wild animals is a major source. But could insects fill that niche. Same could be said of iron in blood, of uric acid in pee and plant nutrients in poo. But than humanity would know what plants need and spread the nutrients. 

I remember a tv show of scientists monitoring Mtn St Helens recovering and one of the key animals was moles and gophers to recover. They are not large wild animals and whether digging animals plays a key part in the ecosystem— something insects could not fill. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: calcium based electricity and carbon based Re: Science Council Rules
 the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:58:00 +0000


calcium based electricity and carbon based Re: Science Council Rules the World

Good, good, good, for this is going to revive old theories of mine. A long time ago in the 1990s I did a series of theories about carbon and calcium, even a patent application on replacing a calcium skeleton with a carbon fiber human skeleton. Back in the 1990s I owned a carbon fiber bicycle, and just loved it. So I had the idea, that if the human skeleton were carbon fiber, how much more superior in every which way-- strength, lightweight, etc. But, I was questioning whether it was even possible to transition from calcium based bones to carbon based bones. Was it a fundamental difference between plants and animals, that plants are carbon based structure and animals are calcium based structure? 

Another theory of mine in the 1990s, was that animals of huge size in the geological past-- huge dragonflies billions of years ago, then come the dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago, all gigantic size. And I was looking for an explanation, thinking that the size of planet Earth was far smaller, a 1/2 the size and mass it is today some billions of years ago to explain giganticism in animals. Today I would not play around with the size of Earth as explanation for giganticism, but rather, size is a arms race of herbivores versus carnivores, so the size of the elephant is such that it is untouchable by carnivores. Either grow huge or be eaten. Same goes for dinosaurs, the herbivores evolved bigger so the carnivores locked in a arms race in size. 

But in the 1990s, I was not as smart as I am today, with a theory that overlays those earlier theories. First life was a Capacitor, for a capacitor is the essential prime ingredient of all life. Capacitors are the quantum 1 which builds all the other forms of life. So, calcium seems to be the prime ingredient of animals, their electricity channels is calcium, as for plants, their electricity channels are carbon. 

And the two groups need one another-- plants are stationary and require atoms and elements that mobile life can provide. Animals need plants to live and are mobile. It comes down to one is carbon based capacitors using carbon for electricity, and the other is calcium based capacitors and calcium seems to allow mobility. Can carbon based capacitors be mobile? We do not see running plants everyday soon. Although in science fiction we do recall the Day of the Trefids. 

Now here is a cosmological table of the abundance in the universe of life bearing elements of chemistry:: 

--- quoting in parts Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system 
 abundances of the 
 elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380. 
 The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse, 
 1988, 
 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 


atomic number relative cosmic abundances of the elements 
 based on meteors and analysis of the Sun 


Atoms/10^6 Si 
 1 hydrogen H 2.79 x 10^10 
 2 helium He 2.72 x 10^9 
 3 lithium Li 57.1 
 4 beryllium Be 0.73 
 5 boron B 21.2 
 6 carbon C 1.01 x 10^7 
 7 nitrogen N 3.13 x 10^6 
 8 oxygen O 2.38 x 10^7 
 9 fluorine F 843 
 10 neon Ne 3.44 x 10^6 
 11 sodium Na 5.74 x 10^4 
 12 magnesium Mg 1.074 x 10^6 
 13 aluminum Al 8.49 x 10^4 
 14 silicon Si 1.00 x 10^6 
 15 phosphorus P 1.04 x 10^4 
 16 sulfur S 5.15 x 10^5 
 17 chlorine Cl 5240 
 18 argon Ar 1.01 x 10^5 
 19 potassium K 3770 
 20 calcium Ca 6.11 x 10^4 
 21 scandium Sc 34.2 
 22 titanium Ti 2400 
 23 vanadium V 293 
 24 chromium Cr 1.35 x 10^4 
 25 manganese Mn 9550 
 26 iron Fe 9.00 x 10^5 
 27 cobalt Co 2250 
 28 nickel N 4.93 x 10^4 
 29 copper Cu 522 


Now, magnesium and calcium are very abundant, it is potassium that seems rather rare. 

I do not know, is copper essential to life? 

Recently was a report that scientists have a suspicion that Venus has life in some form of bacteria that live off sulfur. I forget the name of these life forms, have to look that up again. Question, do those sulfur eating life have copper atoms in them? If so, then is copper the one essential element for all life and the rarest in terms of abundance? Is copper the limiting element? Or is potassium the limiting element. 

And here we have to see how a Capacitor based on Calcium, differs from a capacitor based on carbon. 

Last year, last winter I performed experiments showing that carbon rods form a capacitor. I need to do the same for calcium. Looking up the web, I see research reports that the ear is a calcium capacitor of sorts and I see a Supercapacitor made up of calcium, copper oxides. 

I think where this is going-- is the awareness that animals are calcium based and plants are carbon based, and a planet full of life like Earth needs for the plants to thrive, needs a certain amount of mobile animals to be transporting and spreading calcium and copper and iron and potassium. 

So, where this may eventually go-- is the idea that if we extinct all animals of larger size than a housecat, that we could face extinction ourselves unless every day of every year we go around and fertilize all the land around the world with the nutrients that the animals had provided for the topsoil. In other words the gory scenes of a lion hunt ending up eating a wildebeest in Africa with all the blood and bones strewn about, is what is daily needed by the surrounding plants. 

So, if we kill and extinct all the large animals, then we ourselves are going to have to fertilize the land each and every day-- the poop the pee, and especially calcium and copper and potassium. We would have to alter our silly behavior of cremation and human burial, for it is our bones of calcium that the rest of the Earth's ecosystem needs, which the wild animals deliver each and every day. 

In fact, there is probably a neat math formula for the animal kingdom amount of calcium it is carrying and the plant kingdom the amount of carbon it is carrying so that we have say a formula of Carbon = 10^4 Calcium. And that if we killed all wild animals, that formula is upset and the plants begin to die off. Now we can test that speculation in that Space greenhouse of Arizonia ?? was it Arizonia where they simulated a Mars greenhouse isolated from Earth. 

And then there are the oceans-- for there is plenty of calcium in oceans of the fish bones. And what happens to much of that calcium? Does it sink down to the furthest depths of the oceans into the trenches? And how much carbon is in the ocean life versus calcium? Is there more calcium than carbon in ocean life? The carbon would be mostly the bacteria and plankton, but near land would be mosses and tissue plants. So if the oceans were dead, we too again would have to be fertilizing the oceans with calcium and other elements. 

Now can insects make up for the shortfall if all wild animals were extincted? I do not know, for insects have that chitin, that carbon structure. How much calcium do insects have? Many many questions. 

But feel confident that the extinction of all wild animals imposes a risk to extinction of humanity. There is a tipping point of when you destroy a web of interactions that is life on Earth, you disrupt that web so much that the homo sapiens, the supposed wise animal, destroys himself. 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: is animal CO2 any different than CO2 from fire Re: Science Council
 Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:16:01 +0000

is animal CO2 any different than CO2 from fire Re: Science Council Rules the World

I do not think any scientist has researched this to its full extent. That given a forest, virgin forest without humans interfering, that it has large wild animals and through their daily poop and pee and eventual death and body decay of its calcium, is vital to the forest. Without its wild animals of large size, all forests are doomed to decline. 

The Redwoods of California do not get its essential elements and have declined ever since the USA has become its owner. The Redwoods need that daily poop and pee and large animal carcass. 

Africa used to have large forests of flora and large animals, and now, Africa large animals are reduced to 1/100 of what they were. We can also see, that the flora of Africa over the past 300 years has been reduced by 1/100 of what they were 300 years ago. 

South America Amazon basin used to be a impenetrable jungle, but with the farming and clearing of land and eradication of large animals, the Amazon flora is likely to be 1/10 of what it was. 

Europe has some ancient forests, like in Poland, but no where near what it was without humans all over the place. And the large animals in the Poland forest are a fraction of what they were when virgin forests. On NATURE it was revealed that it was hard to keep Lynx in that Polish forest due to poachers wanting a Lynx mounted taxiderm in their homes. Bears are routinely shoot. 

Now the Great Plains of the USA where herds and herds of buffalo and deer antelope used to roam and graze. If we read accounts of the flora before man settled that region, the daily pee poop and carcasss on the Plains, made those grasslands lush as far as the eye could see. 

So, there is a contract-bargain between plants and large wild animals. They need one another. The plants need that which animals provide of pee, poop, and large body carcass. If we eliminate all large wild animals, we either have to fertilize those lands with calcium, copper, potassium and other minerals, daily fertilize all lands where no large wild animals live. 

Flora and forests in decline are not getting enough elements and minerals and decline where insect borers and other pests just take over the weakened flora. 

Now we built a simulation Mars terrarium of sorts. I think it is in Arizona, where we have a Greenhouse completely enclosed from Earth, no earthly thing. So, if you have plants in this greenhouse and no animals obviously, how well or how poorly do those plants grow. Is a research we easily can do. 

So, here is the contract bargain between plants and wild large animals. Sure the animals eat alot of the plants, but the plants what they need is that daily pee and poop and every now and then need those animal calcium bones strewn underneath their roots. Probably the iron, calcium, copper are vital. 

Now, forgive me for saying this, since the peabrain scientist or nonscientist will jump up and down hollering at this. Question;; is there a difference in the CO2 that animals breathe out and the CO2 from fires and volcanoes, from coal oil gas burning, from even wood burning. All of us, whether a scientist or a howling buffoon non scientist would say there is no difference. Noone can distinguish CO2 from a breathing large wild animal and a CO2 molecule from a fire. 

But, this, needs to be thoroughly checked out? I think there is possible a difference in a CO2 molecule from a horse or elephant or buffalo breathe than the CO2 from a coal fire or gasoline fire. 

And, well, if there is a difference, then that contract between plants and animals is even larger than what anyone ever thought, that the link between plants and animals is a tight close link. 

For the composition of air by scientists goes something like this: 

78.09% nitrogen 

20.95% oxygen 

.93% argon 

.04% carbon dioxide 

.4% water vapor 


Now, we as animals breathe in oxygen which is abundant in air, but take a look at CO2 and if you were a plant, would you have trouble breathing if CO2 was so rare in the atmosphere. 

But then you have a large wild animal come up to this plant and breathe out CO2 and the plant would surely enjoy that huge supply of CO2, but the question here is, is that animal CO2 a bit different from car burned gasoline CO2. You see, people shoot from the hips without really science investigation. Could the CO2 from an animal have a isospin that is different from the CO2 burnt in fire or explosion, and thus the animal CO2 is the one required for plants. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:32:42 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: is copper atoms essential to life, all life forms?// acidophiles in
 Venus Re: Science Council Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 00:32:43 +0000

is copper atoms essential to life, all life forms?// acidophiles in Venus Re: Science Council Rules the World

Alright, it is NEW SCIENTIST, 21April 2018 "Microbes could live in the acidic skies of Venus" 

Talking about acidophiles living in the Venus atmosphere, presented by David Holmes. 

Now let me ask a few questions, do acidophiles contain atoms of copper? 

Is copper essential for life? 

Can copper atoms whether in free form or in molecular bonding remain in the atmosphere, or would the gravity weight of copper molecules make it fall to the surface. If true, then Venus has no acidophile organisms. 

Are there in fact any permanent homes of bacteria or organisms in Earth's atmosphere or are they just transitory visitors of the atmosphere? If transitory, is it because they contain copper and thus weighed down to return to the surface. 

AP 

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 8:07:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
is copper atoms essential to life, all life forms?// acidophiles in Venus Re: Science Council Rules the World

Well here we have it, but, is copper the rarest of elements essential for life? 

Quoting Wikipedia— 

Copper is essential to all living organisms as a trace dietary mineral because it is a key constituent of the respiratory enzyme complex cytochrome c oxidase. In molluscs and crustaceans, copper is a constituent of the blood pigment hemocyanin, replaced by the iron-complexed hemoglobin in fish and other vertebrates. In humans, copper is found mainly in the liver, muscle, and bone.[6] The adult body contains between 1.4 and 2.1 mg of copper per kilogram of body weight.[7] 




On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 9:45:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
molybdenum// acidophiles in Venus Re: Science Council Rules the World

Alright, iodine is essential for humans but not for most species, especially plants. 

For plants, molybdenum Mo element 42  is essential. Copper is element 29. 

AP


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:00:01 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: CO2 from animals is far different than CO2 from fire Re: Science
 Council Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 05:00:02 +0000

CO2 from animals is far different than CO2 from fire Re: Science Council Rules the World

Alright i want to fully explore this idea that the CO2 that comes from animals is different than CO2 from burning coal oil gas or wood. 

Quoting Wikipedia;: 

Stretching and bending oscillations of the CO2 carbon dioxide molecule. Upper left: symmetric stretching. Upper right: antisymmetric stretching. Lower line: degenerate pair of bending modes. 
Structure and bonding        Edit 
See also: Molecular orbital diagram § Carbon dioxide 
The carbon dioxide molecule is linear and centrosymmetric. The carbon–oxygen bond length is 116.3 pm, noticeably shorter than the bond length of a C–O single bond and even shorter than most other C–O multiply-bonded functional groups.[19] Since it is centrosymmetric, the molecule has no electrical dipole. Consequently, only two vibrational bands are observed in the IR spectrum – an antisymmetric stretching mode at 2349 cm−1 and a degenerate pair of bending modes at 667 cm−1. There is also a symmetric stretching mode at 1388 cm−1 which is only observed in the Raman spectrum.[20] 


On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:18:06 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Animal CO2 different from fire CO2 ?? Re: Science Council Rules the World

- show quoted text -
Here I am going on just wishful thinking and hopes, hopes that we have a Scientific Reason to save all large wild animals, save them from extinction. Just today I see on BBC news of deer shot by arrows in Oregon, where a deer has a arrow sticking through its skull and the police offering a reward for someone with information on the villain. 

What I am hoping is there is a difference in chemistry from the CO2 that animals breathe out and the CO2 formed from burning or fire of wood, coal, oil, gasoline, gas. Is there a difference in CO2 that is produced in animals versus violent forming of CO2 in fire. I am hoping there is, and that plants breathe in only the animal CO2. Sounds like wishful thinking. 

But then no-one has ever bothered to check, to analyze. 

What I am thinking is the CO2 from fire is not linear shaped but is folded into a triangle or oval shape. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:48:09 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: fire CO2 triangular shape just as H2O is triangular Re: Science
 Council Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 05:48:09 +0000

fire CO2 triangular shape just as H2O is triangular Re: Science Council Rules the World

- show quoted text -
Alright now, there is a pretty image of CO2 molecule on the web, showing a linear molecule of a carbon atom in the center and two oxygen atoms of covalent double bonds. 

O=C=O 

Linear covalent double bonds. 

But now, let us question that when CO2 is formed in fire. The question is, why would O2 impacting carbon in wood, oil, coal, gas, gasoline, why would the O2 split apart and then each O become opposite side of C?? 

Why not the O2 molecule impact the C atom and then form this 
   C 
  //\\ 
O=O 

But in animal breathing, which is a slow process of forming CO2, the endresult is the 

O=C=O 

In a violent impact of O2 to carbon in burning or explosion, why not triangle or oval shaped bonding. 

Now, H2O, is triangle shaped 

H  H 
  O 

Why not CO2 formed in a violent interaction of fire, be also triangular shaped as water shape. 

AP


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:55:58 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: can CO2 be a greenhouse gas if linear, not triangular?? Re: Science
 Council Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 05:55:59 +0000

can CO2 be a greenhouse gas if linear, not triangular?? Re: Science Council Rules the World

Now in Global Warming Greenhouse gases the worst is methane and it is triangular shaped. 

Water in clouds is greenhouse effect and water is triangular. 

But now, if we have CO2 as linear shaped, the CO2 formed from violent means of burning, the linear shape does not conform to the methane greenhouse effect. 

Unless, of course, there exists two shapes of CO2, the linear shape from animal breathing, and the triangular shape of CO2 caused whenever there is fire and carbon. 

If this is true, and I hope it is, then plants cannot use the triangular CO2, only the linear CO2, and thus, the case is made that we need large wild animals in order to maintain breathable CO2 for all the plants on the planet. The killing and extinction of large wild animals is only a killing and extinction of humanity itself. 

I hope that is true, and please asking all research scientists to confirm or deny the above. Time is of the essence. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 23:13:24 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: greenest most thriving plants should be along highways, but they are
 not Re: Science Council Rules the World
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 06:13:24 +0000


greenest most thriving plants should be along highways, but they are not Re: Science Council Rules the World

- show quoted text -
Now another experiment on this same subject is -- what if CO2 comes in two different molecular shapes and that plants can only use the linear form which comes from animals breathing. Well, it is easy enough to see if plants connected to the exhaust of autos should either flourish if they can absorb auto CO2 or they should be stunted in growth. And then another greenhouse where large animals breathing are housed and compare the plants. 

For the life of me, I have never seen grass on highways berms seen that grass as anything special over grass that is further from the road. 

So if CO2 from coal oil gas, gasoline is all one and the same as animal breathing CO2, then one should find plants along highways as the best growing of all-- yet to the contrary, we seldom see plants near highways as prospering. And not with the excuse that roads have salt. 

So, many, many experiments have I outlined above. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#683166 — have I got it reversed? Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 12:40:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 22:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: fire CO2 triangular shape just as H2O is triangular Re: Science
>  Council Rules the World
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 05:48:09 +0000
> 
> fire CO2 triangular shape just as H2O is triangular Re: Science Council Rules the World
> 
> - show quoted text -
> Alright now, there is a pretty image of CO2 molecule on the web, showing a linear molecule of a carbon atom in the center and two oxygen atoms of covalent double bonds. 
> 
> O=C=O 
> 
> Linear covalent double bonds. 
> 
> But now, let us question that when CO2 is formed in fire. The question is, why would O2 impacting carbon in wood, oil, coal, gas, gasoline, why would the O2 split apart and then each O become opposite side of C?? 
> 

Now I may have that turned around and all upside down.

Since in fire, of coal, wood, oil, gas, gasoline, is violent with much energy, and so in this violent environment of CO2 production, the O2 molecule can split up and reform with the carbon atom at the center and thus be linear. And as for animal CO2, it is triangular shaped because it was not a energy filled environment where the O2 bond with the C in a triangular geometry.

So, until physicists and chemists come in with the answers, we can only wait and speculate.





> Why not the O2 molecule impact the C atom and then form this 
>    C 
>   //\\ 
> O=O 
> 
> But in animal breathing, which is a slow process of forming CO2, the endresult is the 
> 
> O=C=O 
> 
> In a violent impact of O2 to carbon in burning or explosion, why not triangle or oval shaped bonding. 
> 
> Now, H2O, is triangle shaped 
> 
> H  H 
>   O 
> 
> Why not CO2 formed in a violent interaction of fire, be also triangular shaped as water shape. 
> 

Maybe both CO2 forms of linear and triangular are greenhouse effect gases, only the triangular form can be used by plants and the linear CO2 is a toxin to plants. Or vice versa-- for we need answers fast.

AP

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

#683199 — have I got it reversed? Re: Physicists, chemists, does CO2 come only in one form--linear, or, are their two forms triangular CO2 from fire, just as triangular as H2O

Trying to get a handle on the chemistry of how a animal turns O2 to CO2 and the how a plant strips away the O2 to get at the C

Source Wikipedia

—-quoting—-
Gas exchange in plants is dominated by the roles of carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapor. CO
2 is the only carbon source for autotrophic growth by photosynthesis, and when a plant is actively photosynthesising in the light, it will be taking up carbon dioxide, and losing water vapor and oxygen. At night, plants respire, and gas exchange partly reverses: water vapor is still lost (but to a smaller extent), but oxygen is now taken up and carbon dioxide released.[36]

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

#683219 — linear CO2, versus triangular CO2 (if it exists) and can stoma hint there are two types??

So, I am trying to narrow this down.

In animals the chemistry is

C6H12O6 --> combustion --> byproducts 6CO2 + 6H2O + heat

we have glucose combusted in the presence of O2 yielding the byproducts

So the glucose was ultimately derived from Plant tissue and the combustion is what we can call biological combustion.

A Physical combustion let us call a fire.

So now fire upon carbon in the form of coal, wood, oil, gas, gasoline, would be simply this chemistry

C_n ---> fire ---> CO2

Now the tough one is how plants go from CO2 to O2.

Looking at Oxtoby&Nachtrieb, they show

NADP+ + H2O --> NADPH + 1/2 O2 + H+ which is not at all clear how the CO2 went through the plant ending up as O2.

But what concerns me, is the CO2 produced in biology respiration is not the same CO2 produced in fire combustion, that the extra energy in fire combustion produces a CO2 of a different geometry.

Now maybe the stoma the air opening in plants lends a clue as to whether CO2 has two geometry shapes. Could the CO2 that is linear flow through the stoma, or is the CO2 that is triangular (if it exists) flows through the stoma??

So many questions, so few answers.

AP

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

#683243 — other examples in chemistry where rate of reaction produces different geometries Re: linear CO2, versus triangular CO2 (if it exists)

Now I am trying to think of some other molecules that have different geometries dependent on the rate of reaction of formation.

Now carbon if a lot of pressure and heat is applied has a diamond geometry but if not much pressure and heat, graphite is the outcome geometry. 

Now with H2O it is triangular, but can it ever be linear such as CO2.

And a big clue is that the slower the reaction such as a slow fire has more CO than usual other than CO2, so this tells us that carbon molecules most likely depend for rate of reaction as to the final geometry of molecules.

Now a question about Water, in that it holds heat so splendidly. Could it be that H2O holds that heat so well because in normal room temperature conditions the water molecule is of a triangle shape
H  H
  O

I forgot what that angle is.

But now, is it possible that the reason water holds heat so well is that the heated water puts that angle to be almost linear like this

H  O  H

Same as CO2 at this

O C O

And as the hot water loses its heat, is just a reflection that the 

H O H are becoming again shaped as this

H  H
   O

And so, if that is all true, then it is highly likely that CO2 has always had two geometrical forms-- the linear and the triangle shape.

And I reckon, but do not hold me to this, that the CO2 produced by fire of wood, coal, oil, gas, gasoline, that CO2 is linear, as to have broken apart the O2 and allowed the C to wedge in there, into O C O

And the CO2 produced by animals respiration, that CO2 is slow reactions, yielding CO2 triangular shaped, what chemistry calls a polar molecule. And if true, well, then plants exist on the CO2 triangle shape.

Now I have never seen any plants thrive close to auto exhausts where there is surplus CO2, never.

And I wonder about the corral reef bleaching. Is a linear CO2 involved that is killing the corrals.

So here we need to roll up our sleeves, get to work and find out as quick as possible if CO2 comes in two geometry configurations, a linear and a triangle shape. If so, then what CO2 is that which plants live on? And is the other CO2 toxic to plants.

If all of this is true, and I hope it is, for the sake of all large wild animals. For it is the case that if we extinct all large wild animals, we run the risk of our own extinction.

AP

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

#683256 — how could all chemists and physicist have missed two different types of CO2 // rate of reaction produces different geometries Re: linear CO2, versus triangular CO2 (if it exists)

Now I am not saying this is true, only hoping that it is true, that CO2 has two forms of molecules, a linear version as O C O and a triangular version, much like water H2O

O  O
   C

Now if true, how in the world could all the chemists and physicists have missed that? How?

Well the best explanation is that all chemists and physicists never got their supplies of CO2 from animal breathing, animal respiration. They got all their supplies of CO2 from industrial like burning, the bunsen burner in the lab. All of them used fire extracted CO2, and none ever bothered with human or animal respiration CO2.

AP

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

#683266 — is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules?

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 9:18:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now I am not saying this is true, only hoping that it is true, that CO2 has two forms of molecules, a linear version as O C O and a triangular version, much like water H2O
> 
> O  O
>    C
> 

Now, NO2 is triangular with a 134.3 degree angle

Now, water H2O is triangular with a 104.45 degrees

Now I really question whether the accuracy can be to .45 degrees? But that aside.
                                                    _
Dinitrogen has a triple bond N=N 

> Now if true, how in the world could all the chemists and physicists have missed that? How?
> 
> Well the best explanation is that all chemists and physicists never got their supplies of CO2 from animal breathing, animal respiration. They got all their supplies of CO2 from industrial like burning, the bunsen burner in the lab. All of them used fire extracted CO2, and none ever bothered with human or animal respiration CO2.

Is CO2 the only linear three atom molecule?

AP

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

#683269 — Re: is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules?

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 9:18:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Now I am not saying this is true, only hoping that it is true, that CO2 has two forms of molecules, a linear version as O C O and a triangular version, much like water H2O
> > 
> > O  O
> >    C
> > 
> 
> Now, NO2 is triangular with a 134.3 degree angle
> 
> Now, water H2O is triangular with a 104.45 degrees
> 
> Now I really question whether the accuracy can be to .45 degrees? But that aside.
>                                                     _
> Dinitrogen has a triple bond N=N 
> 
> > Now if true, how in the world could all the chemists and physicists have missed that? How?
> > 
> > Well the best explanation is that all chemists and physicists never got their supplies of CO2 from animal breathing, animal respiration. They got all their supplies of CO2 from industrial like burning, the bunsen burner in the lab. All of them used fire extracted CO2, and none ever bothered with human or animal respiration CO2.
> 
> Is CO2 the only linear three atom molecule?
> 

Ammonia, NH3 is triangular with angle 107.8 degrees and has a slightly higher heat capacity than does water.

So, I am confident there exists a triangular CO2.

AP

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

#683270 — Re: is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules?

Now the below makes sense if CO2 comes in two shapes. 

For consider animals do not release oxygen but utililize it all— at least i think that is the case.

—- quoting a web site —-
New research suggests plants could be releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than previously thought.

A study involving the Australian National University, Western Sydney University, and centres around the world has found plants release more carbon dioxide through their respiration.

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

#683278 — Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular

As a fact we know there exists linear CO2

We do not know if triangular CO2 exists.

We do know that CO2 is the most dense of common gases.

We know plants cannot live without CO2, and being dense the CO2 is found close to the ground where plants live.

Let us call the CO2 from animals as biological bio CO2 and the CO2 from fire as nonbio CO2. Are these two CO2 exactly alike? Or is on linear, other triangular.

If CO2 is dense relative to other common gases why is so much of it in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse effect. For since it is so dense the nonbio CO2 should be staying close to the surface of Earth.

Unless of course there are two forms of CO2 the most dense is triangle CO2 the gas plants need and stays near the ground. And the linear CO2, far less dense and can stay in atmosphere for a long time.

Density issues imply two different types of CO2

Physics logic::

When fire produces CO2 it takes more energy to move the two O atoms apart and reserve the center for C. In biological respiration there is no violent collision of O2 with C. Not enough energy to wedge apart O to O and let the C occupy center spot.

And so when a plant wants to use a CO2 molecule, to wedge apart linear is too much energy. To wedge apart triangle CO2 is easy for it was created from biology energy.

AP

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

#683299 — Re: Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular

On 5/2/2018 4:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> As a fact we know there exists linear CO2
> 
> We do not know if triangular CO2 exists.
> 
> We do know that CO2 is the most dense of common gases.
> 
> We know plants cannot live without CO2, and being dense the CO2 is found close to the ground where plants live.
> 
> Let us call the CO2 from animals as biological bio CO2 and the CO2 from fire as nonbio CO2. Are these two CO2 exactly alike? Or is on linear, other triangular.
> 
> If CO2 is dense relative to other common gases why is so much of it in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse effect. For since it is so dense the nonbio CO2 should be staying close to the surface of Earth.
> 
> Unless of course there are two forms of CO2 the most dense is triangle CO2 the gas plants need and stays near the ground. And the linear CO2, far less dense and can stay in atmosphere for a long time.
> 
> Density issues imply two different types of CO2
> 
> Physics logic::
> 
> When fire produces CO2 it takes more energy to move the two O atoms apart and reserve the center for C. In biological respiration there is no violent collision of O2 with C. Not enough energy to wedge apart O to O and let the C occupy center spot.
> 
> And so when a plant wants to use a CO2 molecule, to wedge apart linear is too much energy. To wedge apart triangle CO2 is easy for it was created from biology energy.
> 
> AP
> 
Just listen to this insane fantasy from ArchiePoo! Archie is so 
desperate to have recognition he dances insanely just to get attention. 
No matter what your fantasies there is no evidence of any "triangular" 
CO2 or different energies required to disassemble it. You think that if 
you just say the opposite of what science says, one day you'll be right 
and get the recognition you so crave. Like you Archie, such a method is 
nothing but a swindle and only proves your senility and insanity. Get 
help, Archie. Your drool cup is full again.

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

#683382 — Re: Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 8:18:32 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 5/2/2018 4:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > As a fact we know there exists linear CO2
> > 
> > We do not know if triangular CO2 exists.
> > 
> > We do know that CO2 is the most dense of common gases.
> > 
> > We know plants cannot live without CO2, and being dense the CO2 is found close to the ground where plants live.
> > 
> > Let us call the CO2 from animals as biological bio CO2 and the CO2 from fire as nonbio CO2. Are these two CO2 exactly alike? Or is on linear, other triangular.
> > 
> > If CO2 is dense relative to other common gases why is so much of it in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse effect. For since it is so dense the nonbio CO2 should be staying close to the surface of Earth.
> > 
> > Unless of course there are two forms of CO2 the most dense is triangle CO2 the gas plants need and stays near the ground. And the linear CO2, far less dense and can stay in atmosphere for a long time.
> > 
> > Density issues imply two different types of CO2
> > 
> > Physics logic::
> > 
> > When fire produces CO2 it takes more energy to move the two O atoms apart and reserve the center for C. In biological respiration there is no violent collision of O2 with C. Not enough energy to wedge apart O to O and let the C occupy center spot.
> > 
> > And so when a plant wants to use a CO2 molecule, to wedge apart linear is too much energy. To wedge apart triangle CO2 is easy for it was created from biology energy.
> > 
> > AP
> > 
> Just listen to this insane fantasy from ArchiePoo! Archie is so 
> desperate to have recognition he dances insanely just to get attention. 
> No matter what your fantasies there is no evidence of any "triangular" 
> CO2 or different energies required to disassemble it. You think that if 
> you just say the opposite of what science says, one day you'll be right 
> and get the recognition you so crave. Like you Archie, such a method is 
> nothing but a swindle and only proves your senility and insanity. Get 
> help, Archie. Your drool cup is full again.

Benj is not a stalker, we can give him that much credit. But Benj is a anti-science bully creep, and sci.physics needs a mechanism of getting rid of antiscience sh)theads, who troll and troll sci.physics. Freedom of Speech is one thing, but bully anti-science is ABUSE of sci.physics. Benj has played his acid bullying for more than 10 years now, and needs to see some exit doors

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

#683380 — Lewis structure in New Chemistry Re: Logical argument CO2 comes in two different geometries— linear & triangular

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:35:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> As a fact we know there exists linear CO2
> 
> We do not know if triangular CO2 exists.
> 

Alright, let us build on those two facts with the newly discovered Fact , that the real proton= 840MeV
the real-electron is a muon attached to the proton as 105MeV and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. That Electricity was never the flow of electrons but was the flow of Dirac's Magnetic Monopoles.

What this forces science to realize is that chemistry bonding is altogether different than previously understood. It changes the Lewis diagram and Lewis structure and the biggest change is the CO2 molecule itself.

In Old Chemistry, Old Physics were simpleton ideas of Lewis structure of CO2, with the idea that Oxygen craved 2 electrons, nitrogen craved 3 electrons, carbon craved 4 electrons, that hydrogen wanted to either get rid of its 1 electron or gain an additional electron. But here, the Monopole was thought to be the electron so that gets into destroying the true science. And in Old Chemistry, Old Physics there was schizophrenia over the importance of numbers of 6, of 8 in Lewis diagrams, Lewis structure. Does the oxygen atom in O2 seek to be 8 electrons around a oxygen nucleus, or does it seek 6, depending on if the oxygen wants to be a Noble gas configuration of a s + p configuration. If only p then 6, is wanted but if both s and p then 8 is wanted.

So in Lewis structure, does the Oxygen have 8 dots or 6 dots of potential filling. In Old Chemistry where they thought the electron was .5MeV, they had no 6 dot Lewis Structure.


> We do know that CO2 is the most dense of common gases.
> 
> We know plants cannot live without CO2, and being dense the CO2 is found close to the ground where plants live.
> 
> Let us call the CO2 from animals as biological bio CO2 and the CO2 from fire as nonbio CO2. Are these two CO2 exactly alike? Or is on linear, other triangular.
> 
> If CO2 is dense relative to other common gases why is so much of it in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse effect. For since it is so dense the nonbio CO2 should be staying close to the surface of Earth.
> 
> Unless of course there are two forms of CO2 the most dense is triangle CO2 the gas plants need and stays near the ground. And the linear CO2, far less dense and can stay in atmosphere for a long time.
> 
> Density issues imply two different types of CO2
> 
> Physics logic::
> 
> When fire produces CO2 it takes more energy to move the two O atoms apart and reserve the center for C. In biological respiration there is no violent collision of O2 with C. Not enough energy to wedge apart O to O and let the C occupy center spot.
> 
> And so when a plant wants to use a CO2 molecule, to wedge apart linear is too much energy. To wedge apart triangle CO2 is easy for it was created from biology energy.
> 
> 

Alright so draw a 8 dot Lewis structure of Oxygen
 . .
:O:
 ..


draw a 6 dot Lewis structure of oxygen
 . .
:O:

Hydrogen would be one dot

 .
H

The electrons in Lewis dot structure as being muons, not monopoles, we immediately see that in Oxygen
in the p-orbital, the 6 electrons as muons would be triangular shaped. That is the p_x, p_y, p_z are triangle shaped.

H2O fills the Lewis structure of 6 electrons, not 8 electrons

NH3, ammonia fills the Lewis structure of 6 electrons, not 8 electrons

nitrogen alone is
  .
.N.


 H
 . .
 N:H
 . .
 H

So this brings us to CO2

Old Chemistry would have their mistaken 8 dots
..        ..
O::C::O
..        ..

because Old Chemistry thought the real electron was .5MeV applied to a s+p orbitals

New Chemistry sees the Lewis structure of CO2 as this
   ..
   C
 ..  ..
O : O
..    ..

And, thus, in order for CO2 to fulfill a Lewis structure, there is a triangular CO2

Now, if you form CO2 from a fire impact, that energy can result in a linear CO2
 ..       ..
O ::C:O:  but notice there is some asymmetry in a linear CO2 but no asymmetry in the triangular CO2

AP

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

#683411 — Lewis structure only useful for P orbital, not an octet but 6 Re: Lewis structure in New Chemistry

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 2:54:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 3:35:48 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > As a fact we know there exists linear CO2
> > 
> > We do not know if triangular CO2 exists.
> > 
> 
> Alright, let us build on those two facts with the newly discovered Fact , that the real proton= 840MeV
> the real-electron is a muon attached to the proton as 105MeV and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. That Electricity was never the flow of electrons but was the flow of Dirac's Magnetic Monopoles.
> 
> What this forces science to realize is that chemistry bonding is altogether different than previously understood. It changes the Lewis diagram and Lewis structure and the biggest change is the CO2 molecule itself.
> 

I am afraid to say that the Lewis structure was designed not for the number 8, an octet but designed only for the number 6 due to the 6 electrons in the p orbital. And it is this confusion in Old Chemistry, that disallowed them to check into CO2 more carefully.



> In Old Chemistry, Old Physics were simpleton ideas of Lewis structure of CO2, with the idea that Oxygen craved 2 electrons, nitrogen craved 3 electrons, carbon craved 4 electrons, that hydrogen wanted to either get rid of its 1 electron or gain an additional electron. But here, the Monopole was thought to be the electron so that gets into destroying the true science. And in Old Chemistry, Old Physics there was schizophrenia over the importance of numbers of 6, of 8 in Lewis diagrams, Lewis structure. Does the oxygen atom in O2 seek to be 8 electrons around a oxygen nucleus, or does it seek 6, depending on if the oxygen wants to be a Noble gas configuration of a s + p configuration. If only p then 6, is wanted but if both s and p then 8 is wanted.
> 
> So in Lewis structure, does the Oxygen have 8 dots or 6 dots of potential filling. In Old Chemistry where they thought the electron was .5MeV, they had no 6 dot Lewis Structure.
> 

Now I am not denying that a linear CO2 exists, but no-one in physics or chemistry ever pondered-- ever recognized for that matter, that a isolated C atom impacted by a O2 molecule, why on Earth would that joining together, place the C in the exact middle of O bonded to O.

So you have a isolated C atom collided by a O2 molecule. Why would the O to O bond be severed in any way so that the C can slip in between, exact middle, and end up being OCO. That defies Feynman's Least Energy involved.

For when a O2 molecule impacts a C atom, what physics is going to say in terms of Least Energy spent is that the joining of O2 to C is a triangle CO2

  C
O O

Extra energy has to be placed upon a C to O2 interaction for that C to end up in the center spot of O O.



> 
> > We do know that CO2 is the most dense of common gases.
> > 
> > We know plants cannot live without CO2, and being dense the CO2 is found close to the ground where plants live.
> > 
> > Let us call the CO2 from animals as biological bio CO2 and the CO2 from fire as nonbio CO2. Are these two CO2 exactly alike? Or is on linear, other triangular.
> > 
> > If CO2 is dense relative to other common gases why is so much of it in the upper atmosphere causing greenhouse effect. For since it is so dense the nonbio CO2 should be staying close to the surface of Earth.
> > 
> > Unless of course there are two forms of CO2 the most dense is triangle CO2 the gas plants need and stays near the ground. And the linear CO2, far less dense and can stay in atmosphere for a long time.
> > 
> > Density issues imply two different types of CO2
> > 
> > Physics logic::
> > 
> > When fire produces CO2 it takes more energy to move the two O atoms apart and reserve the center for C. In biological respiration there is no violent collision of O2 with C. Not enough energy to wedge apart O to O and let the C occupy center spot.
> > 
> > And so when a plant wants to use a CO2 molecule, to wedge apart linear is too much energy. To wedge apart triangle CO2 is easy for it was created from biology energy.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Alright so draw a 8 dot Lewis structure of Oxygen
>  . .
> :O:
>  ..
> 
> 
> draw a 6 dot Lewis structure of oxygen
>  . .
> :O:
> 
> Hydrogen would be one dot
> 


Now yesterday I wrote about when animals respiration of CO2 by using glucose


C6H12O6 --> combustion --> byproducts 6CO2 + 6H2O + heat 

We certainly know that the energy exchange inside an animal body is not going to be a fire combustion, no wood, coal, oil, gas, gasoline fire is taking place inside an animal body. So the combustion of glucose in the prescense of oxygen is not a violent energy exchange, and thus, the formation of the 6CO2 above, must not be linear CO2.


>  .
> H
> 
> The electrons in Lewis dot structure as being muons, not monopoles, we immediately see that in Oxygen
> in the p-orbital, the 6 electrons as muons would be triangular shaped. That is the p_x, p_y, p_z are triangle shaped.
> 
> H2O fills the Lewis structure of 6 electrons, not 8 electrons
> 
> NH3, ammonia fills the Lewis structure of 6 electrons, not 8 electrons
> 
> nitrogen alone is
>   .
> .N.
> 
> 
>  H
>  . .
>  N:H
>  . .
>  H
> 
> So this brings us to CO2
> 

In fact, thinking about it, it is rare for any molecule to be linear.



> Old Chemistry would have their mistaken 8 dots
> ..        ..
> O::C::O
> ..        ..
> 
> because Old Chemistry thought the real electron was .5MeV applied to a s+p orbitals
> 
> New Chemistry sees the Lewis structure of CO2 as this
>    ..
>    C
>  ..  ..
> O : O
> ..    ..
> 
> And, thus, in order for CO2 to fulfill a Lewis structure, there is a triangular CO2
> 
> Now, if you form CO2 from a fire impact, that energy can result in a linear CO2
>  ..       ..
> O ::C:O:  but notice there is some asymmetry in a linear CO2 but no asymmetry in the triangular CO2
> 

Now, if all the above is true, then linear CO2 should be easily tested against triangular CO2, because if you have a box where you place rods in them and another box where you place triangle in it and stack them. the box of rods is going to take up almost all the space, whereas the triangles are going to be having much more -- open holes -- throughout.

AP

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

#683450 — a density paradox of CO2 causing global warming

So, what explanation have scientists given for the fact that CO2 is the densest, largest mass molecule of the common gases, and thus a paradox as to why CO2 would stay in the atmosphere and cause greenhouse effect of warming. Why would not CO2 rapidly fall to Earth surface and sort of lay low.

Could an explanation be that the atmosphere CO2 is linear and thus this linear form floats in the atmosphere, while the triangular form of CO2 would sink to the surface.

Is that the answer?

AP

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

#683462 — surface area of CO2 Re: a density paradox of CO2 causing global warming

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 9:19:29 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So, what explanation have scientists given for the fact that CO2 is the densest, largest mass molecule of the common gases, and thus a paradox as to why CO2 would stay in the atmosphere and cause greenhouse effect of warming. Why would not CO2 rapidly fall to Earth surface and sort of lay low.
> 
> Could an explanation be that the atmosphere CO2 is linear and thus this linear form floats in the atmosphere, while the triangular form of CO2 would sink to the surface.
> 
> Is that the answer?
> 

I am looking for an answer to this perplexing question as to why CO2 is the most dense common gas, yet the Greenhouse Effect is attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere. I can see how CO2 would get raised into the atmosphere by wind and storm, but since it is so dense, it should fall to Earth surface rather quickly.

So, what explains that?

Looking at H2O of molar mass 18.01 g/mol and CO2 44.01 g/m, more than double that of water.

Looking at geometry, the distance of H from O in water is 95.84 pm and for CO2 the distance from C to O in linear CO2 is 116.3 pm suggesting a surface area of CO2 is considerably larger than water vapor. Explaining, perhaps, how CO2 can float in the atmosphere as easily as H2O.

AP

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

#683530 — Two paradoxes of CO2-- too dense to be global warming gas, and, linear geometry is paradoxical

Call it the CO2 Paradox, actually two paradoxes in one.

__First paradox__ is that CO2 is the densest of atmosphere common gases, the most dense. And being the most dense common gas in the atmosphere it should fall out and not be the greenhouse gas that is causing Global Warming.


78.09% nitrogen 

20.95% oxygen 

.93% argon 

.04% carbon dioxide 

.4% water vapor 


___Second Paradox__ is that CO2 is attributed with a Linear geometry as this

O=C=O 

Linear covalent double bonds. Yet a linear geometry requires extra energy in formation of the C in the middle spot of a former O to O bonded O2 molecule. That is a paradoxical geometry of linear suggesting for some unknown physics manipulation of a C atom displacing a O=O bonding.

So we have two paradoxes with Old Chemistry of CO2. How can it be the Greenhouse Gas causing Global Warming if too dense to stay in the atmosphere ( I have seen no scientist addressing this issue) And secondly, why would the formation of CO2 be linear when being linear is an added extra cost in energy, when triangular CO2 just as H2O is a triangular molecule, would be the natural formation of CO2.


Why not the O2 molecule impact the C atom and then form this 
   C 
  //\\ 
O=O 

Which is likely that the animal respiration breathing is a triangular CO2.

Wrestling with these two paradoxes of CO2, the natural and most simple explanation so far, that I have come up with, is that the Greenhouse gas causing global warming is CO, carbon monoxide for it is lightweight and can stay permanently in the atmosphere.

As to why chemists have thought CO2 was linear, is a problem that they used only fire produced CO2 from burning fossil fuels. And a fire produced CO2 is different in geometry from a animal breathing CO2.

I think that is the best a Logical mind can do on CO2 given the data at present.

That CO is the global warming gas, not CO2 for it is too dense to stay in the atmosphere. And that the reason the planet Earth's flora is not lush green from all that extra CO2 from fossil fuel burning, is because that CO2 has two geometry forms, it has a triangular CO2 which plants do need, and it has a linear CO2 which is toxic to plants.

Now there maybe a middle ground explanation, that when fire produced linear CO2 is formed, it is not stable for long and decomposes into CO molecules such as this reaction:

CO2 + CO2 --> 2CO + O2

All of which can be answered simply, by collecting animal CO2 specifically, not contaminated with any fossil fuel CO2. How that is to be done is challenging. I suppose take a containment and vacuum out the gases, next, infuse pure oxygen nitrogen mix for an animal. Then place in containment for a period of time to have enough animal CO2, release animal unharmed and find out if that animal CO2 is far different than the linear fossil fuel CO2.

AP

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

#683845 — Re: is CO2 the only linear 3 atom molecules?

So Archie, when does it become an official fact?

Some CO2 molecules are bent and other CO2 molecules are linear
Because You Said So.  ?

And whether CO2 molecules are linear or bent depends on whether
they were breathed out by animals or formed from something
burning, Because You Said So.  ?

Is there anyone else in the whole world who can declare something
to be a fact because s/he said so? Anyone?

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

#683261

On 5/1/2018 1:40 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> is animal CO2 any different than CO2 from fire

There is no difference. All CO2 is linear, O=C=O. There are some 
greenhouses near me which use propane or oil heat and they deliberately 
allow a little of the exhaust (not too much!) into the greenhouse to 
allow the plants a little extra CO2. They seem to do well.

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

#683265

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:35:04 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> On 5/1/2018 1:40 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > is animal CO2 any different than CO2 from fire
> 
> There is no difference. All CO2 is linear, O=C=O. There are some 
> greenhouses near me which use propane or oil heat and they deliberately 
> allow a little of the exhaust (not too much!) into the greenhouse to 
> allow the plants a little extra CO2. They seem to do well.

No wonder you are a failure of science-- think that such is a research report--

"they seem to do well" You should go into chimney sweeping, not science

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web