Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #683901 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-05 11:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-18 23:57 +0000 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 48 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 19:22 -0700 |
| Subject | 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 |
| Message-ID | <044047b7-e03c-48ef-8361-a7e879cb7d7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684463 |
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 8:12:19 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > It would be nice if we could tag a individual Animal CO2 molecule and a individual O3 molecule to see if it wonders between the 2 poles in a year time, taking 1/2 year for a transit. So I see the layers of the atmosphere Troposphere Stratosphere Mesosphere Thermosphere Exosphere And the ozone layer is at the nexus of the troposphere and stratosphere Strange how the most dense gas is so high up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-09 03:18 +0000 |
| Subject | 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 |
| Message-ID | <pctp9p$9c2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #684489 |
It appears I need to add a few items to the checklist. ☑ ...Can't find the word "stalker"/"stalk"/"stalking" in dictionary... ☑ ...Can't find the word "proof"/"prove" in the dictionary... ☑ ...Can't find the phrase "discussion group" in the dictionary... ☑ ...Can't find the phrase "scientific method" in the dictionary... ☑ .....maybe because Archie doesn't own a dictionary...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-08 23:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Report on CO2 uptake by plants supports the AP theory— CO2 comes in two isomers |
| Message-ID | <pctd6c$9vk$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #684342 |
Can you actually come up with actual evidence/proof that there are really two forms of CO2? Something like X-ray crystallography, solid crystal structure, etc. etc. ? How about actual controlled experiments where plants are grown being fed exclusively CO2 from combustion, and CO2 from animal respiration. No? You just made it up? But you're telling us it's true because you say so? Do you think that's how science works? Seems like something so obvious and so easy to find wouldn't be found for a couple centuries? Of course this would require that someone goes into a lab. You have to admit it how I nabbed it exactly. You are so predictable. You come up with an odd idea, you ask about it here, you aren't interested in any answers you get, you babble about the idea, you look it up online, you babble some more, you misinterpret the research, you tweak your idea, babble some more and Finally, You Declare a New Fact that You "Discovered" That Is True Because You Say So. I caught you at the first babbling phase and correctly predicted that you'd invent a new "fact" that some CO2 is bent and some CO2 is linear in a few days. And you did exactly what I predicted!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 22:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Yes, looking at greenhouse gases from point of view |
| Message-ID | <d028e54f-e809-46d0-a072-37ae6dd34a0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684250 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:55:49 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:51:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Old Physics could never explain why some molecules were greenhouse gases while others were not. > > > > This inability to explain why one gas and not another is a greenhouse gas did not seem to bother anyone in physics or chemistry. Assuming they are aware of it. You just became aware of it now. What makes you think they are any different/better? Generally different disciplines in science are careful not show each other up. The truth is that the primary goal of any scientific discipline is to make sure the funds keep flowing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-06 15:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? |
| Message-ID | <26d00ea7-ab06-4193-9a27-c5c824898e99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684018 |
On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 3:08:10 PM UTC-7, 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. > > AP I never can figure out what you are on about. CO2 has two double bonds. It's linear. But the double bonds are at a 90 degree orientation with one another due to the tetrahedral arrangement of electrons associated with the Carbon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 05:53 -0700 |
| Subject | the isomers CO and CO2, it is the carbon that varies in position, not oxygen Re: can a 6 dot Lewis explain it all? |
| Message-ID | <643acdf0-a7ea-4bfa-b706-7f5d55f0c59d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684018 |
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
> '
> .
>
Sorry, no, I need one major adjustment here, for it is not the O that is going to vary in position but the carbon atom C. In these theoretical undertakings, it is often the case that you get the participants turned around.
.
.
O : C
.
.
There, that makes more sense since the two isomers, CO and CO2 vary in the position of the carbon atom, for in CO, the C varies in position from the angle at which the 6 monopoles form, while in CO2 the C atom varies in position to the z axis over the xy O to O bond.
> 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.
>
In chemistry, overall the double and especially triple bond were very much vague. Not that they did not exist, but rather vague in specifics.
AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-07 06:11 -0700 |
| Subject | 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 |
| Message-ID | <5bd5f8f1-252f-4585-aa91-9ebea247dbda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684097 |
On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 7:53:49 AM UTC-5, 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. > > Yes, you can always tell the atom which moves in position in a bond, as the more lightweight atom, the angular momentum of the lightest is the positional variable atom. So in CO2 the carbon varies in position in the z axis. > > 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 > > ' > > . > > > > Sorry, no, I need one major adjustment here, for it is not the O that is going to vary in position but the carbon atom C. In these theoretical undertakings, it is often the case that you get the participants turned around. > > . > . > O : C > . > . > > There, that makes more sense since the two isomers, CO and CO2 vary in the position of the carbon atom, for in CO, the C varies in position from the angle at which the 6 monopoles form, while in CO2 the C atom varies in position to the z axis over the xy O to O bond. > Here again the C is the lightweight atom so its angular momentum pivots in position around the O atom. And since that angle of bonds in CO is greater in CO than in CO2, the CO2 is a better greenhouse gas absorbing more infrared than does CO. > > 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. > > > > In chemistry, overall the double and especially triple bond were very much vague. Not that they did not exist, but rather vague in specifics. > If the above is true, it should be easy to perform plant experiments with fire CO2 showing that the plants really do not grow any better than if no fire CO2 was present. What matters is the CO2 that is bio created from animals that makes the difference. Now here I remember a long time ago reading research reports that plants become adverse when too much fire produced CO2 is around. Leaving scientists with the impression that some fire CO2 is beneficial to plants. And here I am making just the opposite conclusion, that no fire produced CO2 is of any benefit to plants. All plant CO2 has to come from animals is my assertion. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-18 23:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pdnp8j$vb7$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #683901 |
>Michael Moroney anal buttfuckmanure stalker for 26 years Once again, thank you for requesting another Babble-o-meter Calculation! ☑ Archie reposts the same old, same old, yet again... ☑ ...and again and again... ☑ ...and again and again... ☐ ...posted enough times to be classified as spam... ☐ ...Post has no new content, in fact... ☐ ...Archie's spam complains about other spammers or babblers... ☑ ...Purpose of post is to remain #1 Front Page Hog... ☐ .....meanwhile, Archie complains of some other "Front Page Hog"... ☐ ...Post posted in the wrong topic... ☐ .....and to the wrong newsgroup... ☐ ...Author awards self Nobel Prize/claims he should be so awarded... ☐ .....Author rejects self-awarded Nobel, real awardees don't deserve it... ☐ ...Author sour grapes Nobel or other science/math prize... ☑ ...Post has science or math 100% made up from whole cloth... ☑ ...Post's science/math based on earlier whole cloth science/math... ☑ .....which was based on even earlier whole cloth science/math... ☑ .....which was, oh never mind... ☑ ...One word: Logorrhea... ☑ ...Post contains The Truth because Archie said it is true... ☐ ...Phrases such as "Old Science" (actual science) and "New Science (babbling of author)... ☐ ...Author thinks cutting up magazines disproves actual math proofs... ☑ ...Author thinks a bad dream is an excellent basis for physics... ☑ ...Archie doesn't understand Usenet, not even after 26+ years... ☑ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do... ☑ ...Archie even thinks Google runs Usenet... ☑ .....even though Archie used Usenet even before there even was a Google... ☑ ...Archie won't engage in discussion in a discussion group... ☑ ...Writes "Keep out of my threads!"... ☐ ...Archie demands professors resign for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ...Post includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors... ☑ ...Another word: Graphomania... ☐ ...Archie outwitted by someone too stoopid to come out of the rain AGAIN... ☑ ...Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages... ☑ ....he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9... ☐ ....and he thinks 16.81 is "spot on" 17... ☑ ...Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't... ☐ ...Post includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing... ☐ ...Post contains ascii art of Archie's butthole... ☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s... ☐ ...Archie tries to involve totally uninvolved people... ☐ .....with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took... ☐ .....but has no clue they will never see his post... ☐ .....and has no clue they probably don't know what Usenet is... ☐ .....he expects them to have power/authority they simply don't... ☑ ...Too stoopid to realize attack posts just produce more posts like this... ☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said. Archie's Babbling Nonsense score: 23 plutoniums!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web