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

Groups > sci.physics > #683901 > unrolled thread

True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:30 -0700
    Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 12:12 -0700
      does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 12:23 -0700
        does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:00 -0700
          does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:19 -0700
          Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 14:40 -0700
            Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:04 -0700
              bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:15 -0700
                Re: bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 17:30 -0700
                  Re: bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-06 02:03 +0000
            Reason For Existence of the Chemical Bond-- grow new protons faster Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 22:00 -0700
              Density of CO2 makes it a more potent greenhouse gas Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 23:15 -0700
                One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 00:07 -0700
                  One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:38 -0700
                    One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:43 -0700
                    Lewis with 6 not 8 & isomers of CO2 Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 11:53 -0700
                    can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:08 -0700
                      greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:22 -0700
                        Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:30 -0700
                        carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:12 -0700
                          carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 16:23 -0700
                            carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 19:36 -0700
                              geometry is so important in physics and chemistry Re: carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 20:49 -0700
                            Re: carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 11:18 -0700
                            carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:08 -0700
                              monopoles drive Arrhenius ion theory, not electrons Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:05 -0700
                                Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:22 -0700
                                  Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:51 -0700
                                    Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 16:01 -0700
                                    Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 17:55 -0700
                                      Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 20:07 -0700
                                        Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:29 -0700
                                          Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-08 07:44 +0000
                                          Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:31 -0700
                                            from Black in 1750, to AP in 2018, no scientist had the logical mind to see if CO2 comes in two different isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:40 -0700
                                              Re: from Black in 1750, to AP in 2018, no scientist had the logical mind to see if CO2 comes in two different isomers Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 10:22 -0700
                                                We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 14:42 -0700
                                                  Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 15:19 -0700
                                                    Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 16:26 -0700
                                                      Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 18:12 -0700
                                                        Re: Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 19:22 -0700
                                                          Re: Does Animal CO2 migrate with Earth's spin Re: We know winter is a weather phenomenon of temperate climates, and plants go dormant, but is CO2 involved in plant dormancy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-09 03:18 +0000
                                            Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-08 23:51 +0000
                                      Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 22:55 -0700
                      Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 15:22 -0700
                      the isomers CO and CO2, it is the carbon that varies in position, not oxygen Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:53 -0700
                        mass of atoms dictates which atoms move around in a bond// plants cannot utilize any fire produced CO2 Re: the isomers CO and CO2, it is the carbon that varies in position, not oxygen Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:11 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-18 23:57 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#683901 — True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

Alright, well, before 2018, I took it for granted that all the science behind CO2 as the culprit causing Climate Change was all very true. I accepted it all, until I ran into this notion that CO2 molecule was linear. For me, that changed the entire ballgame of Greenhouse Gas Effect.

And, well, the only reason I got involved with CO2 itself, is that I wanted some reason to save and protect large wild animals from extinction. Do large wild animals serve a necessary vital function on earth, otherwise all other biology is in trouble? Would the extinction of all large wild animals be a nonchalant-- so what. The answer to that question must involve CO2 to O2 cycle of Nature. If all large wild animals were extincted today, could the insects step in and replace those wild animal functions?

That question lead me to the fact that Old Chemistry believes CO2 is linear, and that puzzling idea, has lead me to investigate whether our Global Warming Science is not on sure footed stance, but is teeter tottering. And is full of misconceptions.

And we have to ask the question-- Global Warming Science, could it be all correct as given up to 2018, if those very same scientists could never realize nor understand that the Real Proton = 840 MeV, Real Electron = 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. No, it is almost impossible to have a correct Global Warming science if you do not even have what the correct electron is.

So, when I was looking for what function does Large Wild Animals have in biology, it came down to the issure of them giving CO2 for plants in the wild, and then when I saw that CO2 was considered Linear, the red flags of alarm were raised. And that is where I stand today. In the middle of a complex and complicated science of Global Warming. There is no doubt it is going on, but the explanations are not yet fully understood.

Brown, LeMay, Bursten, Chemistry the Central Science, 5th ed, 1991, page 72, says that CO2 was only about 300 parts per million of the atmosphere before 1900 and by 1990 was 350 parts per million.

--- quoting ---
By absorbing radiant heat, it acts much like the glass over a greenhouse.

Carbon dioxide, by contrast, is uniformily distributed throughout the atmosphere, at a concentration of about 330 ppm. Because water vapor absorbs infrared radiation so strongly, it plays the major role in maintaining the atmospheric temperature at night, when the surface is emitting radiation into space... In the absence of an extensive layer of water vapor to absorb and then radiate back to the earth part of the infrared radiation, the surface loses this radiation into space... Carbon dioxide plays a secondary, but very important, role in maintaining the surface temperature.

--- end quoting ---

This is troubling science, for it is not a clear, coherent picture of what is going on. And the biggest fault is the fact that yes, water has a high heat capacity, and water is a polar molecule, triangular with a 104 degree angle. So in the storage of heat by water, does that 104 degree angle become 180 degree angle

H- O -H

from  

  O
H  H

Yet CO2 starts out as linear

O=C=O

So our modern day view of Greenhouse Effect is very very primitive understanding.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#683907

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 1:30:54 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> And we have to ask the question-- Global Warming Science, could it be all correct as given up to 2018, if those very same scientists could never realize nor understand that the Real Proton = 840 MeV, Real Electron = 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. No, it is almost impossible to have a correct Global Warming science if you do not even have what the correct electron is.
> 

So, here is the crux of the matter. Could scientists, ever, possibly get all of Greenhouse Effect global warming science correct, if they never even had the correct electron of atoms?

Greenhouse Effect is true.

Global Warming is true.

Climate Change is true.

But, the explanation and mechanism of those three could never possibly be all correct when you think that the electron is the .5MeV particle involved in all of this.

Only when you think Real Proton = 840 MeV, Real Electron = 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole, only then do you have a chance of getting all the correct science behind Greenhouse Effect, behind Global Warming and behind Climate Change.

Otherwise, scientists could only get bits and pieces correct, not the whole picture.

AP

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

#683909 — does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

Now the first step in a comprehensive view and understanding of Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, Climate Change is a step on complete understanding of water, water vapor, gaseous H2O.

And there is no doubt it absorbs Sun radiation and reemits the radiation, but specifically how does H2O do that? How is H2O a thermal blanket?

Here we can answer that in two ways::

1) the H2O water vapor is loosely bonded with other H2O and as it absords radiation those bonds of intermolecules become unbonded and the H2O separate.

2) The angle of H2O bonds of the two hydrogen atoms to the oxygen, that angle is made more to be 180 degrees than to 104 degrees.

Now those are my two guesses at the moment. And I favor (2) explanation. But there could be other explanations.

What I am getting at, is an explanation of how water absorbs Sun radiation and then reemits the radiation. Also, how is water have a high heat capacity.

AP

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

#683928 — does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

So here, what is required for climate science that is logical and comprehensive is to explain on the atomic and molecular level how sun radiation is absorbed and emitted. So far i see no-one doing that explanation. And so what i am suggesting is that if we can follow completely how water holds heat in heat capacity— we can then understand how greenhouse gases function. Does the angle of water molecule 104 degrees get bent into 180 degrees as the explaining mechanism of water’s heat capacity?

Quoting Wikipedia::

Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms—are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents—N2, O2, and Ar—are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases.

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

#683931 — does H2O angle of 104 become 180 Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

Now the reason i ask that is because Wikipedia says N2 and O2 are not absorbers of infrared radiation. Are they not absorbers because their bonding angle is 180 degrees.  So we can say— all greenhouse gas molecules are triangle molecules of a bond angle less than 180 degrees. Is that a universal truth and the mechanism involved in absortion and emmittance of infrared radiation.

AP

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

#683934 — Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 4:00:16 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So here, what is required for climate science that is logical and comprehensive is to explain on the atomic and molecular level how sun radiation is absorbed and emitted. So far i see no-one doing that explanation. And so what i am suggesting is that if we can follow completely how water holds heat in heat capacity— we can then understand how greenhouse gases function. Does the angle of water molecule 104 degrees get bent into 180 degrees as the explaining mechanism of water’s heat capacity?
> 
> Quoting Wikipedia::
> 
> Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms—are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents—N2, O2, and Ar—are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases.

Now let me focus in on that very important and -- idea-packed-- sentence above from Wikipedia.

".... intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases."

So, is the understanding of why a Greenhouse Gas absorbs infrared, is because the gas has a Bond Angle less than 180 degrees and H2O with its bond angle at 104 degrees is the best, very best absorption of heat rivalled only by NH3-- Ammonia, NH3 is triangular with angle 107.8 degrees and has a slightly higher heat capacity than does water. 

So, what is happening in Absorption of Sun infrared is that the molecule absorbs the energy and its bond angle keeps increasing to approach 180 degrees. The Angle is the absorbing mechanism, sort of like a spring when fully wound-- from 104 or 107 degrees until 180 degrees. And this winding of the spring is Kinetic Energy that collides with neighboring molecules and winds the spring down in energy to where it was 104 or 107 degrees.

However, this does not explain CO as a greenhouse gas, but it does certainly explain CH3, methane of its 109 degree bond angle.

So absorption involves bond angle, but emittance is vague in kinetic energy and re-radiation of infrared.

AP

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

#683942 — Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions Re: True Science behind Greenhouse Gas Effect and Global Warming Climate Change

So, is the understanding of why a Greenhouse Gas absorbs infrared, is because the gas has a Bond Angle less than 180 degrees and H2O with its bond angle at 104 degrees is the best, very best absorption of heat rivalled only by NH3-- Ammonia, NH3 is triangular with angle 107.8 degrees and has a slightly higher heat capacity than does water. 

H2O and NH3 have a high heat capacity collectively.  You seem to not get this.  

You have no understanding of heat capacity.  Watch this and learn:

Pauling's Omission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1bKHUE7SNw

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

#683945 — bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:

> H2O and NH3 have a high heat capacity collectively.  You seem to not get this.  
> 
> You have no understanding of heat capacity.  Watch this and learn:
> 

You have no understanding of either Logic-- how to think straight and clear, nor that of science -- how to put things together in coherent ideas.

Collective would be alright for a liquid or solid, but certainly not for a gas. A gas diffuses, not collects.

So the answer lies with geometry of atoms and molecules. That points to angle of bonding and how and why some molecules absorb infrared, others do not.

AP

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

#683948 — Re: bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > H2O and NH3 have a high heat capacity collectively.  You seem to not get this.  
> > 
> > You have no understanding of heat capacity.  Watch this and learn:
> > 
> 
> You have no understanding of either Logic-- how to think straight and clear, nor that of science -- how to put things together in coherent ideas.
> 
> Collective would be alright for a liquid or solid, but certainly not for a gas. A gas diffuses, not collects.
> 
> So the answer lies with geometry of atoms and molecules. That points to angle of bonding and how and why some molecules absorb infrared, others do not.
> 
> AP

It's got nothing to do with any kind of EME, including infrared.  It has to do with kinetic energy--movement.  The molecules in liquid water are moving constantly.  As I describe, polarity and polarity neutralization through H bonding is what underlies molecular heat capacity.

You are ignorant. Obviously you will never explain how/why you think bond angle is significant. You'll just keep blubbering on.

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

#683951 — Re: bond angle vs. K.E. Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then KE is emittance via collisions

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 7:04:36 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:

>> H2O and NH3 have a high heat capacity collectively.  You seem to not get this.  
>> 
>> You have no understanding of heat capacity.  Watch this and learn:
>> 

>You have no understanding of either Logic-- how to think straight and 
>clear, nor that of science -- how to put things together in coherent 
>ideas.

KO0kfight!!! In this corner, at 180 pounds of raw arrogance, we have
Archimedes "Because I Said So" Plutonium, backed by the full support of a
Giant Cosmic Atom!  And in this corner, at 185 pounds of raw stupidity,
we have James "Tardnado" McGinn and his Magic Water Plasma! At the bell,
come out swinging!!! And may the best k0Ok win!!!

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

#683960 — Reason For Existence of the Chemical Bond-- grow new protons faster Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions

Funny and strange how ideas lead into other ideas. This adventure into global warming gases has a clear path of my adventure.

Two or three weeks ago, I was voicing concern that all large wild animals of the world are going extinct, and whether, the price of that is of no consequence to humanity. That insects will fill the gap left by large wild animals. As if large wild animals had not much significance. So, I was looking to see, if large wild animals really did have no essential importance in living. Which lead me to consider the CO2 to Oxygen cycle that plants need one and animals the other. So that plants do need their large wild animals. But that is not true if the fossil fuel CO2 is the same as animal CO2. But, if animal CO2 is indeed vastly different from fossil fuel CO2, then the case can be made that large wild animals are essential, not some collateral loss.

That lead me to investigate if CO2 comes in two very different forms-- a linear CO2 and a triangular CO2, where H2O is triangular. And thus, that lead me to take a close, very close look at Greenhouse effect, Global Warming, Climate Change. So from the innocent start of wanting to save large wild animals from extinction, I end up smack in the middle of Global Warming. Strange how ideas branch off and lead you elsewhere.

And now, well, another branching off, and perhaps the more important idea. I am the discoverer that the Real Proton is 840 MeV, real electron is 105 MeV and that little particle of .5 MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. That discovery leads to the idea that atoms have a Reason For Existence-- a Faraday law in which neutrons are slowly filled with monopoles to compose a new proton for that specific atom and thus grow into being a higher atomic element. In other words-- atoms are growing-- all of them working to be a new higher atomic element.

That leaves me with the question, is there a Reason For Existence of molecules? If the purpose of each and every atom, to grow into being a higher atomic element, then why bother with chemically bonding of atoms? Is there a Reason For Existence of Molecules, since the atom is growing itself, why bother in bonding with other atoms? Could it be, that bonding of electrons = muons with other atoms, that the bonding helps the individual atoms to proceed to grow a new proton faster than if not bonded? Sort of like humans will give birth to a baby, better, if the mother is a part of a social group (bonding) than if she had to do it by herself lonesome. So is that the reason-for-existence of chemical bonds, the individual atoms bonding of their electrons, increases their productivity of turning magnetic monopoles into forming new protons and becoming higher atomic element.

So in this manner of speaking when the Sun radiates energy to Earth and the atmosphere of Earth, that the gas molecules absorb that infrared radiation-- magnetic monopoles, and the absorption is filling neutron sacks within that atoms of the molecules of gas and thus growing a new proton faster than if the atoms were singular atoms, not bonded.

AP

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

#683961 — Density of CO2 makes it a more potent greenhouse gas Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions

Now one of the problems of climate science is we have used a bad analogy, a misleading analogy by using “ greenhouse” for it conjures up the image of heat trapped inside as if these gases are window pane glasses. A better analogy would have been thermal blanket.

So it is not infrared radiation trapped but rather redirected back to Earth again so it does not matter if CO2 is in the atmosphere or close to ground, the CO2 can redirect infrared at both places— in atmosphere or close to ground. That solves one of the paradoxes i mentioned earlier, but the other paradox— why a linear molecule for CO2 and is there a triangular CO2 is an open question. Here the paradox is you have a carbon atom collide with a O2 and why on earth would the C lie in middle of O—C—O, for that takes up more energy.

AP

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

#683962 — One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions

In the formation of CO2, why would the O2 molecule dissociate and allow the C to take center position of a lineat molecule.

Perhaps what is happeniing is one of the bonds is triple as in CO.

So you have a
    _
O = C = O

A fire produced CO2 has a triple bond with a double bond.

AP

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

#684002 — One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions

Alright, this is grating on my nerves, and want a solution by end of the day. 

There is a paradox here— linear geometry would break the O2 bond just to place a C atom in its center violating Least Energy Principle.

Solution (prospective) — the Lewis Diagram is not 8 but 6

The Lewis bonding diagram involves 6 not 8

H2O is a template
      ..
     O
   /     \
 H      H

That is p_x, p_y

So to solve CO2, it is C with two dots and O with four dots
And to solve entails the p_z axis where the O to O bond in the p_x and p_y plane is shared with carbon.

This would make experimental testing of CO2 look as if it were linear.

AP

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

#684004 — One paradox remaining Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions

I believe what i am dealing with here with CO2 is what is called isomers

Source web:
i·so·mer
ˈīsəmər/Submit
noun
plural noun: isomers
1.
CHEMISTRY
each of two or more compounds with the same formula but a different arrangement of atoms in the molecule and different properties.
2.
PHYSICS
each of two or more atomic nuclei that have the same atomic number and the same mass number but different energy states.

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

#684005 — Lewis with 6 not 8 & isomers of CO2 Re: Is bond angle, absorption, then K.E. is emittance via collisions

I hope this is the solution for it allows a high enery produced CO2 that plants cannot use but is triangular and causes greenhouse effect. Whereas the xy plane CO2 isomer is that plants and animals exchange. I hope this is true for i desperately want to save large wild animals from extinction. If they go extinct— we go extinct. A two way bargain.

AP

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

#684018 — can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all?

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:38:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, this is grating on my nerves, and want a solution by end of the day. 
> 
> There is a paradox here— linear geometry would break the O2 bond just to place a C atom in its center violating Least Energy Principle.
> 
> Solution (prospective) — the Lewis Diagram is not 8 but 6
> 

By the end of today, I want this solved.

> The Lewis bonding diagram involves 6 not 8
> 
> H2O is a template
>       ..
>      O
>    /     \
>  H      H
> 
> That is p_x, p_y
> 
> So to solve CO2, it is C with two dots and O with four dots
> And to solve entails the p_z axis where the O to O bond in the p_x and p_y plane is shared with carbon.
> 
> This would make experimental testing of CO2 look as if it were linear.
> 

What this does is make CO2 triangular and I hope, also, CO as triangular, that way I get absorption in infrared to be connected to the angle of the triangle involved, just as H2O is triangle bonding.

So, CO2 isomer of fire produced CO2 is this

       . .
       O
    /     \
   C --O
          . .

Now that C shares the O to O bond and for that reason, experimental physics shows CO2 as linear when in fact, the sharing of the O2 bond forces the C onto the z plane while O to O is in the xy plane.

The plant CO2 isomer is very much different for it had no origin in fire produced CO2.

Plant CO2 isomer looks like this:

       . .
       O
    /     \
   C --O
          . .

The same as fire CO2, only the Carbon atom is also remaining in the xy plane and has no z axis coverage. So it is easier to produce animal CO2 and to unzip animal CO2 for plants to use.

This would explain why experimental physics reveals a linear CO2 which is not really linear, for the C atom is spread over the z axis while the animal CO2 the bio CO2 is firmly set into the xy plane.

Now, to be true, it must explain Carbon Monoxide as a greenhouse gas, not as potent as CO2 fire isomer.

Here the challenge is that CO is only 2 atoms and would for all accounts be considered linear, and thus no bond angle.

So the Lewis diagram modified for 6 monopoles, not the octet 8 monopoles, but for 6 we would have a CO molecule as this
         .
      . 
C :   O
      ' 
        .

Alright, this Modified Lewis diagram involves not 8 dots but 6 and the reasoning is that Lewis only covers the p orbitals of p_x, p_y, p_z

So in these Lewis with 6 dots in total around any atom, is that the 2 carbon dots has to combine with the 4 oxygen dots to make 6 for carbon and 6 for oxygen. What that entails is a Oxygen atom that is what we can call "stretched state from the tip of one dot above, to the tip of the other dot below, stretched oxygen atom
while the carbon atom has its two dots between carbon and oxygen, so that both share 6 dots in all.

This would give CO a angle as the dots form a angle, and it would also explain why CO is unstable, for it burns in oxygen, CO is a fuel, and to be a fuel, its dot pattern must but lucrative for it to burn.

Now, why is N2 or O2 not greenhouse gases, the 6 dot Lewis has to explain those with having no angles.

AP

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

#684019 — greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all?

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 5:08:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:38:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, this is grating on my nerves, and want a solution by end of the day. 
> > 
> > There is a paradox here— linear geometry would break the O2 bond just to place a C atom in its center violating Least Energy Principle.
> > 
> > Solution (prospective) — the Lewis Diagram is not 8 but 6
> > 
> 
> By the end of today, I want this solved.
> 
> > The Lewis bonding diagram involves 6 not 8
> > 
> > H2O is a template
> >       ..
> >      O
> >    /     \
> >  H      H
> > 
> > That is p_x, p_y
> > 
> > So to solve CO2, it is C with two dots and O with four dots
> > And to solve entails the p_z axis where the O to O bond in the p_x and p_y plane is shared with carbon.
> > 
> > This would make experimental testing of CO2 look as if it were linear.
> > 
> 
> What this does is make CO2 triangular and I hope, also, CO as triangular, that way I get absorption in infrared to be connected to the angle of the triangle involved, just as H2O is triangle bonding.
> 
> So, CO2 isomer of fire produced CO2 is this
> 
>        . .
>        O
>     /     \
>    C --O
>           . .
> 
> Now that C shares the O to O bond and for that reason, experimental physics shows CO2 as linear when in fact, the sharing of the O2 bond forces the C onto the z plane while O to O is in the xy plane.
> 
> The plant CO2 isomer is very much different for it had no origin in fire produced CO2.
> 
> Plant CO2 isomer looks like this:
> 
>        . .
>        O
>     /     \
>    C --O
>           . .
> 
> The same as fire CO2, only the Carbon atom is also remaining in the xy plane and has no z axis coverage. So it is easier to produce animal CO2 and to unzip animal CO2 for plants to use.
> 
> This would explain why experimental physics reveals a linear CO2 which is not really linear, for the C atom is spread over the z axis while the animal CO2 the bio CO2 is firmly set into the xy plane.
> 
> Now, to be true, it must explain Carbon Monoxide as a greenhouse gas, not as potent as CO2 fire isomer.
> 
> Here the challenge is that CO is only 2 atoms and would for all accounts be considered linear, and thus no bond angle.
> 
> So the Lewis diagram modified for 6 monopoles, not the octet 8 monopoles, but for 6 we would have a CO molecule as this
>          .
>       . 
> C :   O
>       ' 
>         .
> 
> Alright, this Modified Lewis diagram involves not 8 dots but 6 and the reasoning is that Lewis only covers the p orbitals of p_x, p_y, p_z
> 
> So in these Lewis with 6 dots in total around any atom, is that the 2 carbon dots has to combine with the 4 oxygen dots to make 6 for carbon and 6 for oxygen. What that entails is a Oxygen atom that is what we can call "stretched state from the tip of one dot above, to the tip of the other dot below, stretched oxygen atom
> while the carbon atom has its two dots between carbon and oxygen, so that both share 6 dots in all.
> 
> This would give CO a angle as the dots form a angle, and it would also explain why CO is unstable, for it burns in oxygen, CO is a fuel, and to be a fuel, its dot pattern must but lucrative for it to burn.
> 
> Now, why is N2 or O2 not greenhouse gases, the 6 dot Lewis has to explain those with having no angles.
> 

I think it is easy to explain N2 and O2, for N has 3 dots and if we placed them into a triple bond, linear.

N:::N

And oxygen has 4 dots, so if we placed it as linear in

: O :: O:

Methane is another greenhouse gas and it has plenty of angles to absorb infrared radiation.

So, in this analysis, H2O is the very strongest greenhouse gas for its angles are 104 degrees and can spare absorption of infrared radiation of 180 - 104 = 86 degrees of absorption. While methane is 109 degrees so it can absorb 180-109 = 71 degrees of infrared.

Yes, I think I am close to finished.

AP

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

#684021 — Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all?

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 3:22:22 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 5:08:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:38:31 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Alright, this is grating on my nerves, and want a solution by end of the day. 
> > > 
> > > There is a paradox here— linear geometry would break the O2 bond just to place a C atom in its center violating Least Energy Principle.
> > > 
> > > Solution (prospective) — the Lewis Diagram is not 8 but 6
> > > 
> > 
> > By the end of today, I want this solved.
> > 
> > > The Lewis bonding diagram involves 6 not 8
> > > 
> > > H2O is a template
> > >       ..
> > >      O
> > >    /     \
> > >  H      H
> > > 
> > > That is p_x, p_y
> > > 
> > > So to solve CO2, it is C with two dots and O with four dots
> > > And to solve entails the p_z axis where the O to O bond in the p_x and p_y plane is shared with carbon.
> > > 
> > > This would make experimental testing of CO2 look as if it were linear.
> > > 
> > 
> > What this does is make CO2 triangular and I hope, also, CO as triangular, that way I get absorption in infrared to be connected to the angle of the triangle involved, just as H2O is triangle bonding.
> > 
> > So, CO2 isomer of fire produced CO2 is this
> > 
> >        . .
> >        O
> >     /     \
> >    C --O
> >           . .
> > 
> > Now that C shares the O to O bond and for that reason, experimental physics shows CO2 as linear when in fact, the sharing of the O2 bond forces the C onto the z plane while O to O is in the xy plane.
> > 
> > The plant CO2 isomer is very much different for it had no origin in fire produced CO2.
> > 
> > Plant CO2 isomer looks like this:
> > 
> >        . .
> >        O
> >     /     \
> >    C --O
> >           . .
> > 
> > The same as fire CO2, only the Carbon atom is also remaining in the xy plane and has no z axis coverage. So it is easier to produce animal CO2 and to unzip animal CO2 for plants to use.
> > 
> > This would explain why experimental physics reveals a linear CO2 which is not really linear, for the C atom is spread over the z axis while the animal CO2 the bio CO2 is firmly set into the xy plane.
> > 
> > Now, to be true, it must explain Carbon Monoxide as a greenhouse gas, not as potent as CO2 fire isomer.
> > 
> > Here the challenge is that CO is only 2 atoms and would for all accounts be considered linear, and thus no bond angle.
> > 
> > So the Lewis diagram modified for 6 monopoles, not the octet 8 monopoles, but for 6 we would have a CO molecule as this
> >          .
> >       . 
> > C :   O
> >       ' 
> >         .
> > 
> > Alright, this Modified Lewis diagram involves not 8 dots but 6 and the reasoning is that Lewis only covers the p orbitals of p_x, p_y, p_z
> > 
> > So in these Lewis with 6 dots in total around any atom, is that the 2 carbon dots has to combine with the 4 oxygen dots to make 6 for carbon and 6 for oxygen. What that entails is a Oxygen atom that is what we can call "stretched state from the tip of one dot above, to the tip of the other dot below, stretched oxygen atom
> > while the carbon atom has its two dots between carbon and oxygen, so that both share 6 dots in all.
> > 
> > This would give CO a angle as the dots form a angle, and it would also explain why CO is unstable, for it burns in oxygen, CO is a fuel, and to be a fuel, its dot pattern must but lucrative for it to burn.
> > 
> > Now, why is N2 or O2 not greenhouse gases, the 6 dot Lewis has to explain those with having no angles.
> > 
> 
> I think it is easy to explain N2 and O2, for N has 3 dots and if we placed them into a triple bond, linear.
> 
> N:::N
> 
> And oxygen has 4 dots, so if we placed it as linear in
> 
> : O :: O:
> 
> Methane is another greenhouse gas and it has plenty of angles to absorb infrared radiation.
> 
> So, in this analysis, H2O is the very strongest greenhouse gas for its angles are 104 degrees and can spare absorption of infrared radiation of 180 - 104 = 86 degrees of absorption. While methane is 109 degrees so it can absorb 180-109 = 71 degrees of infrared.
> 
> Yes, I think I am close to finished.
> 
> AP

You are a silly twit talking out your ass.  H2O's high heat capacity only exists in the liquid phase.  It is a collective property.  It is tangentially related to bonds angle.  Arrogant nitwits like you never make any progress.  

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

#684026 — carbonic acid conforms to 6 Lewis diagram Re: greenhouse gas absorption of infrared is related to angles of molecules

Looking good, looking real good. Of course, it has to conform with carbonic acid and its bond angle of 120degrees.

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:52:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
carbonic acid Re: linear CO2 is making the oceans a lifeless sewer for humanity

Alright, CO2 in water, the reaction is 

CO2 + H2O -->  H2CO3- making carbonic acid 

Now the interesting thing is that CO2 is alleged linear and H2O is triangular 

Now, the interesting thing about Carbonic acid Lewis diagram is that the shape is a triangular CO2 attached to a triangular H2O 
         O 
         || 
H     C      H 
  \O/   \O/ 

So, what I wonder here is whether the angles of   
    O 
H/   \H 

are the same in water as in carbonic acid. And here I can get a glimpse of the fact that triangular CO2 exists even if we remove the H2O 

AP

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web