Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • The last one like you slipped on a patch of ice behind a restaurant on the street in San Francisco. Broke his head open, right there on the concrete. Died. Have nice karma, you stinking piece of shit psychopath.

Topic: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being (Read 2547 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #50
Quote from: jimmcginn date=148865

sg=69512
Jim, I must warn you that spamming your book here may lead to deletions and/or restrictions and/or bannings.

If you wish to discuss Alternative Science, we have a subforum for that. Please don't clutter other subforums.

Thank you and welcome to TR.

ETA: I've moved the topic from Science to ASS.

Carry on.

Too much stupidity here.  I think everybody here is an engineer, not a scientist.

If I can't advertise my book I have no reason to be here.

Goodbye

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes



Good riddance.  By the way, most engineers start their education by learning the basics of science.
[/quote]
[/quote]

LOL.  You are told what to believe and you believe it.  That isn't science. That is religion.
[/quote]

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #51
Quote from: jimmcginn
Isaac Newton was a human being
by James McGinn

In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm

Was Isaac Newton omniscient?  Or was he a human being, capable of making a mistake?  I think the latter is the case.  But according to the USA Today article quoted herein you might think it the former.

The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It purports to identify a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry air. In actuality It turns out they are wrong. As most people generally assume, moist air actually is heavier than dry air. So the misconception, actually, is this notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, a notion that is foisted upon us by academia. 

According to this article, the originator of this falsehood is none other than Isaac Newton.  Apparently, in his 1717 in his book Optics Newton made a statement to this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I present below.  Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion as being, "known."  But it actually isn't known and never has been.  For something to be known it has to be tested, measured, or observed.  Or it has to be calculated based on assumptions that themselves are tested, measured, or observed.  And, apparently, that is where Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error: 

    USA Today:
    "To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one
    of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered
    in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas,
    say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would
    always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the
    container."

James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient temperatures/pressures.  It is still liquid.  It is an evaporate, a vapor and, therefore, It consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by electro-static forces between air molecules. Often these microdroplets are very small, so small they are invisible--just as invisible as gaseous H2O (this is what confuses most of us).  All in all, there is zero evidence hat moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available in our ambient environment.

    USA Today:
    "Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic
    foot of perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which
    each have a molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) .
    Another 21% of the air is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular
    weight of 32 (2 atoms with atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a
    mixture of other gases, which we won't worry about. Molecules are free
    to move in and out of our cubic foot of air."

James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate.  Here is where the problem lies:

    USA Today:
    "What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
    molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
    would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
    stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
    molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
    hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both nitrogen
    and oxygen, which average out at 29. In other words, replacing nitrogen and
    oxygen with water vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that
    is, it's density decreases."

James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the number of H2O molecules in the microdroplets.  What is the correct number for X?  Well, the truth is we don't know.  It is, in my opinion, most likely never smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be 18 it would be 180 or larger.  It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making moist air considerably heavier than dry air.  But even if it is only 2 the atomic weight of X, at 36, would still be heavier than that of dry air, at 29. 

So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth.  You can also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just like the rest of us.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Here is a link to the most viewed post in the history of usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ

  • el jefe
  • asleep till 2020 or 2024
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #52
look, you may be right, but I'm afraid your insights are just too dangerous.  if newton's reputation were harmed, then everyone would lose their intellectual compass, and society would break down.  we can't afford that.  I'm sorry.

your dangerous words will be kept away from the people, for their own good.

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #53
Won't someone think of the children!?

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #54
James could make a name for himself by actually weighing dry air and moist air, and thereby demonstrating that his hypothesis is correct. Too much trouble, I guess.

If it has never been measured/tested/verified then its an open question.

Avogadro's Law is well understood.  The math indicates moist air is heavier.

You could make a name for yourself by disproving Avogadro.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

So you're saying that you don't know of any attempts to weigh dry air vs humid air? If that's the case, have you made any effort to rectify your ignorance? Have you even considered designing an experiment that would confirm or falsify your hypothesis? If not, what's stopping you?

By the way, great job with the self-quoting. I hear it's an effective way to get your point across.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #55
Welcome to "Fun With the Quote Function", an interactive tutorial by James McGinn who aptly demonstrates the myriad ways in which to not do it. The plasma stuff is just the meaningless vehicle for this very important public service.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #56
:rofl:
Truth is out of style

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #57
Jesus fucking Christ, even So-crates could master the quote function. And he was even more bug-nuts crazy than you are.
Why do I bother?

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #58
That's as maybe, but you're an idiot with delusions of adequacy, so nobody cares what you think.

Not even one of you pricks addressed the math in the orginal post.

This is forum that caters to retired engineers who have zero ability to think outside the box.
I'm not any kind of engineer, and my reply was directly below, and addressed to, that of Dave Hawkins. Not to you.
Why do I bother?

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #59
it appears someone did ok it. sad!

Nope.  I disapproved the request and sent him a PM explaining we don't do profile deletions.

I predict you assbites will be changing this policy soon.

Good luck with that. If you start spaming other parts of the board then you'll be banned, if you keep to your own threads then you'll just be ignored. We have another member committed to reposting the complete works of Walt Brown, on a repeating cycle, and he's not been banned.

What chance do you think you have?
  • Last Edit: March 04, 2017, 05:15:02 PM by DaveGodfrey
Why do I bother?

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #60
Hasn't Dave given up on Walt?
Truth is out of style

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #61
DaveG is referring to Pahu.

Hawkins is like a genius in comparison to Pahu.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #62
Hawkins is like a genius in comparison to Pahu.
And he can still operate a keyboard? That's amazing.
Truth is out of style

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #63
Pahu is robotic in his devotion to total nonsense.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #64
Memescape! :clap:
Truth is out of style

  • Faid
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #65
That's as maybe, but you're an idiot with delusions of adequacy, so nobody cares what you think.

Not even one of you pricks addressed the math in the orginal post.

This is forum that caters to retired engineers who have zero ability to think outside the box.
What is it with this weird obsession with engineers?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Pingu
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #66
it appears someone did ok it. sad!

Nope.  I disapproved the request and sent him a PM explaining we don't do profile deletions.

I predict you assbites will be changing this policy soon.

lol

Jim, you may be interested to know that somewhere on this board we have a Charter that Must Be Complied With.  If you want to change the Charter there is a complex procedure. The procedure is written in the Charter.  You are at liberty to invoke the procedure.

No, we won't tell you what it is.

Have fun.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #67
Newton was a Reptillian.
Are we there yet?

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #68
look, you may be right, but I'm afraid your insights are just too dangerous.  if newton's reputation were harmed, then everyone would lose their intellectual compass, and society would break down.  we can't afford that.  I'm sorry.

your dangerous words will be kept away from the people, for their own good.

Scared sheep.

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #69
James could make a name for himself by actually weighing dry air and moist air, and thereby demonstrating that his hypothesis is correct. Too much trouble, I guess.

If it has never been measured/tested/verified then its an open question.

Avogadro's Law is well understood.  The math indicates moist air is heavier.

You could make a name for yourself by disproving Avogadro.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

So you're saying that you don't know of any attempts to weigh dry air vs humid air?

I know for a fact that it has never been done.


 If that's the case, have you made any effort to rectify your ignorance?

I have the procedures written up:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/fZIe9qbM9LQ/NS-8RDoNDwAJ
Go for it!!!

The burden of proof is on you fuckwits that think Avogadro's Law is wrong. 

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #70
I'm not
sure if
you have ever
tried to figure out
James could make a name for himself by actually weighing dry air and moist air, and thereby

where the quote tags are


demonstrating that his hypothesis is correct. Too much trouble, I guess.

If it has never been measured/tested/verified then its an open question.

Avogadro's Law is well understood.  The math indicates

relative to the words between them


moist air is heavier.

You could make a name for yourself by disproving Avogadro.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

So you're saying that you don't know of any attempts to weigh dry air vs humid air?

I know for a fact that it has never been done.


 If that's the case, have you made any effort to rectify your ignorance?

I have the procedures written up:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/fZIe9qbM9LQ/NS-8RDoNDwAJ
Go for it!!!

but it turns out that there is a systematic rule for where they go compared to where the words between them are.


The burden of proof is on you fuckwits that think Avogadro's Law is wrong. 
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #71
At first, I thought we had a new player on the crazy science theories train, then he jumped off just as things were getting interested, but I see he can't resist trying to force people to respond to his mad craziness.

  • Doobie Keebler
  • Ridiculous Callipygous
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #72
Jesus fucking Christ, even So-crates could master the quote function. And he was even more bug-nuts crazy than you are.
Having cruised the intertubes to peruse some of his past toaster shakins it's become apparent he hasn't bothered to properly quote much of anything outside of the handful of usenet groups he's graced with his presence. Which is probably half the problem since that's only a matter of inserting your cursor wherever you please and breaking the formatting. Most of his exchanges where he bothers to place any effort seem to take the form of his typing out the exchange like he's writing a screen play from the conversation. I've never seen anything quite like it.
"I'm over 70 and have never seen such , arrogance, incompetence and Ill -intentions as this President and his aids."    The Dotard     (posted 12 days after his 68th birthday)

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #73
Jesus fucking Christ
Hey Jim!
even So-crates could master
Yeah you!
the quote function.
See this shit!
And he was even more
It's really easy!
bug-nuts crazy than you are.
Even for stupid people!

All you do is hit Ctrl+Enter and it will automatically split the quote tags, properly, wherever your cursor is.
Truth is out of style

Re: Isaac Newton Was A Human Being
Reply #74

I have the procedures written up:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/fZIe9qbM9LQ/NS-8RDoNDwAJ
Go for it!!!

You aren't likely going to find a scale sensitive enough to detect the difference in that setup. Quick back of the envelope math would indicate even if you got 1 jar and 0% RH and one at 100%, you are talking about a weight change on the order of 2mg. For comparison, imagine weighing a grain of rice. You need sensitive equipment, but you can do it. Now imagine trying to weigh 1/10th of a grain of rice. A whole lot harder.
  • Last Edit: March 05, 2017, 11:06:14 PM by [Serious]