Isaac Newton was a human beingby 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 McGinnSolving TornadoesHere is a link to the most viewed post in the history of usenet: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/Cin1MQ4ZyFU/QmNEM9mnDgAJ
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.
Quote from: borealis on March 03, 2017, 02:14:22 PMJim, 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.GoodbyeJames McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
it appears someone did ok it. sad!
Well if we refuse to ok him deleting his account, I'm sure his ego will keep him responding.
Quote from: osmanthus on March 03, 2017, 04:00:05 PMWell if we refuse to ok him deleting his account, I'm sure his ego will keep him responding. I hope so. It's been way too long since we've had a fun new crackpot. Frankly I already miss him and fervently hope he hasn't already left us.
We did test the laws of gravity. Turns out the predictions they make when it comes to really big things that are very close don't match reality- e.g. Planet Vulcan.Einstein seems to have got it right. Although now we have the problem of getting that to work with very small things.