@Redteam:
You long ago taught me that while you profess to have had a career that was science-related, the science that you understand to be true is not the same as the science that I know. Most of your last few posts are full of what I consider to be pure nonsense. I ALSO learned long ago that you are not teachable, so I’m not going to waste my time trying.
For the sake of anyone reading Redteam’s posts, I suggest researching his points for yourself. You will easily locate all the good science you need with a quick GOOGLE search of a topic, and you’ll find that Redteam doesn’t know Jack.
Rich Wheeler
9 years ago
@George Wells: Thanks George—much appreciated.your time spent answering my questions
I don’t respond to RT anymore–not worth my time.
“Doesn’t know jack” tells his story.
George Wells
9 years ago
@ Rich Wheeler #52:
Typical RT nonsense:
“we would go to nuclear power plants and do away with all ‘pollution’.”
It would seem that this person who professes to have been employed in the field of science was unaware that nuclear power plants produce enormous amounts of radioactive waste – “spent” nuclear fuel rods, the contaminated water that was used to keep those rods cool during their use, and the radon gas that is produced by the radioactive decay of uranium. Not to mention the pollution that results when nuclear power plants malfunction – try telling the people who used to live near the Chernobyl and Fukushima plants that nuclear power does away with “all pollution.” Perhaps he was a janitor in the industry…
And:
“Man did not invent sulfur.”
Neither did man “invent” fire, but that didn’t stop the Allies from fire-bombing Dresden, it doesn’t stop a Tibetan monk from setting himself on fire in protest of Chinese occupation of his country, and it doesn’t stop children from playing with matches and burning down the homes they live in
.
When man burns naturally occurring elemental sulfur, it produces sulfur dioxide. When man bubbles sulfur dioxide into an aqueous slurry of powdered zinc metal and sodium hydroxide, it produces sodium dithionite – a powerful reducing agent. When man uses sodium dithionite to bleach wood pulp at paper mills, (reducing agents are good at doing that) methyl mercaptans are formed as unwanted by-products that are then released into the air around the pulp and paper mills, giving those places the obnoxious aroma of burning cabbage.
No, we didn’t “invent” sulfur, and neither did we “invent” methyl mercaptans, but we transform what we find in nature into far more toxic forms than are usually found in nature, and we do it all the time.
And so delightfully:
“Shouldn’t we pass a law making it a life sentence if a whale eats a human?”
And inscrutably:
“my idea of aborting the calf when it’s head came out of the birth canal (while it was still not an animal) and cooking it up for veal. That way you can be a ‘meat eater’ without being a ‘meat eater’.”
How can you continue to respond to someone who makes such alarmingly stupid errors and who asks such astonishingly stupid questions?
That’s a question even I cannot answer.
Bill
9 years ago
@George Wells: I guess you don’t understand that the “stupid errors” is nothing but an extension of liberal logic.
George Wells
9 years ago
At Bill #54:
There is nothing “liberal” about being ignorant of basic chemistry or nuclear physics. Redteam’s ignorance isn’t partisan.
But thanks for defending his ignorance. Without it, YOUR side would have nothing.
Bill
9 years ago
@George Wells: Yeah, “our side” is who wants to drive the costs of energy (“necessarily skyrocket”) through the roof in order to pursue a solution to a problem that isn’t there. Nothing ignorant about that… no siree.
Nuclear power just happens to be the cleanest source of abundant energy (available at night and when the wind isn’t blowing, too), but let’s vilify it to satisfy some lunatic tree-huggers. THAT is the epitome of rational.
From your experience, is ignorance bliss?
You’re spending too much time flying that rainbow flag in your chaps raising money to feed cows.
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: The reason you won’t challenge my statements are because they are true and you don’t like having to take the ‘wrong’ side to try to prove a point. I notice you didn’t bother to state exactly what it is you don’t know the truth about.
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: Okay George, dazzle us with your brilliance:
It would seem that this person who professes to have been employed in the field of science was unaware that nuclear power plants produce enormous amounts of radioactive waste
How much radioactive material is on the earth today that wasn’t here when the first nuclear plant was built?
If water is ‘consumed’ and not merely used, how much less water is on the earth and in it’s atmosphere that was here before mankind first showed up?
I’ll use a filter on your answer so the brilliance won’t hurt my eyes.
How can you continue to respond to someone who makes such alarmingly stupid errors and who asks such astonishingly stupid questions?
and yet you have no problem answering a question such as: how many gallons of water is consumed to raise a cow? I notice you didn’t even know the answer to that question.
As far as whether you or that guy from gayfornia answers my questions or respond to my comments, I don’t give a damn. But I will note that you sure seem to like my answers about where gays come from more than you did Pete’s. But if there is a statement on this forum I want to respond to, I will, whether it comes from you or Richie. So you’re saying sulfur dioxide didn’t exist in nature until mankind came along and created it? Damn if man just hadn’t invented all that coal with sulfur in it. Surely they did since it is evil and only mankind is responsible for the evils of the world.
giving those places the obnoxious aroma of burning cabbage.
It is so funny that you go through contortions to show how evil humans are to bleach pulp and form a smell like ‘burning cabbage’ wow, so terrible, but all God had to do was let some cabbages rot in the fields to create that same odor and he didn’t even give us the benefit of producing a bleached sheet of paper from all that ‘foul odor’…..
George, you don’t need to keep rehashing your beliefs in my education. It is very sufficient for dealing with you.
“my idea of aborting the calf when it’s head came out of the birth canal (while it was still not an animal) and cooking it up for veal. That way you can be a ‘meat eater’ without being a ‘meat eater’.”
How can you continue to respond to someone who makes such alarmingly stupid errors and who asks such astonishingly stupid questions?
That’s a question even I cannot answer.
As you should have recognized since you are such a dedicated reader of my comments, this was addressed to all those liberals that claim a baby that is not wholly outside of the body of the mother is not yet a human. That being true then a calf that is not wholly outside is not a cow, so it can be eaten without someone being a ‘meat eater’.
You don’t need to compliment me on my humor, since you ignored this comment and didn’t read it.
Please google ‘water consumption on earth’ and read all about how much the volume of water on earth has changed over time and then provide us all with that link. I’m sure it will show that the oceans are all about to disappear because we are ‘consuming’ all the water. I’ll wait.
Redteam
9 years ago
@Bill: Bill, go easy on George, he has a severe handicap. Not sure if you know.
Redteam
9 years ago
GW and RW, well, when challenged to Put up or Shut up, you both bailed, as expected. As Jack Nicholson said, you don’t want to know the truth, you can’t handle the truth.
Rich Wheeler
9 years ago
@George Wells: Thanks again George–I see no reason to respond to a homophobe like RT, Seven posts in less than an hour–damn–when he starts ranting and raving he’s hilarious–much like Trump he just spouts and insults without even thinking. Waste of time.
I see no reason to respond to a homophobe like RT,
So you’re saying I have a fear of you? One thing for sure, you can’t link to any homophobe statement I have made on this blog.
But you did uphold your end of the agreement, you couldn’t put up so you’ve agreed to shut up. You might zip up the back of your chaps so you don’t catch a cold.
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: So continuing to comment about me is ‘ignoring’ me? I see you aren’t interested in pursuing your version of ‘consumption’ of water. better watch Richie though, he’ll be offering to loan you his chaps. Since you have teamed up with him, he’ll be bugging the crap out of you.
And how much more radioactive material is there now on the earth as a result of humans building nuke plants. I know you are just bristling to dazzle us with your brilliance, well, except there is no ‘there’ ‘there’..
Rich Wheeler
9 years ago
@George Wells:RT is a result of that deep south home schooling and inbreeding—he’s not wired properly..
A proud Trumpeteer to boot–two fools
At least we didn’t leave ignorance as our goal as your folks obviously did.
I know you don’t have a memory, but I have not once said that I’m for Trump. Did you send George your spare set of chaps, yet? He said he didn’t have any. Need to go ahead and get them to him so he can squeeze his brain back up into his head. He’s still trying to figure out why we still have so much water on the earth when he’s been busily ‘consuming’ it all his life. But that may be related to his defective brain wiring.
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: Sitting around waiting for RW to comment again so you can ‘chirp’?
No.
You want to debate scientific fact.
Scientific fact is not debatable, it is verifiable.
You do not understand how to verify a fact and you cannot be taught.
Therefore, it is a waste of time for me, or anyone else, to try to teach you.
Sorry, RT.
There are other FA threads where we can share ideas that do not depend on your mental competence in the field of science.
Go there.
You want to debate scientific fact.
Scientific fact is not debatable, it is verifiable
I don’t want to debate it, never said I did. You are the one that spoke of ‘consuming’ water. I said you have never ‘consumed’ any water, only used it. That is a fact, not debatable.
You are the one that said Nuclear plants create nuclear materials. I said it does not. It is a fact that it does not, so you’re correct that your point is wrong.
You do not understand how to verify a fact and you cannot be taught.
Tell me how you ‘verified’ that you have ‘consumed’ water? Or do you perhaps not understand that you can not do that? And you think I’m the one having a hard time with this?
Give me just one example of how you ‘consumed’ some water. Not used it, ‘consumed’ it. i.e., it no longer exists.
Therefore, it is a waste of time for me, or anyone else, to try to teach you.
I have no problem learning. I graduated in 4 years with high honors in 2 fields, one science and one engineering.
mental competence in the field of science.
I challenge you to answer my two questions, on water ‘consumed’ and nuclear material. Don’t believe you will even attempt to give a scientifically correct answer.
“I challenge you to answer my two questions, on water ‘consumed’ and nuclear material. Don’t believe you will even attempt to give a scientifically correct answer.”
OK.
First:
You are misconstruing the sense of the word “consumption.” Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The word “consumption” is not identical to the word “destruction.” “Destruction” means that the total amount of something in existence changes. “Consumption” means that the FORM of something changes without changing the total AMOUNT of something in existence. When YOU CONSUME food, you change the FORM of the food, you don’t DESTROY it.
Water conservation amounts to the same thing. Drinking a glass of water CONSUMES a glass of water, it doesn’t DESTROY a glass of water. Cattle CONSUME water (and feed) but they don’t DESTROY it. Same thing with crops.
The EXACT same principle applies to the nuclear transmutation of radionuclides. With ALMOST zero exception, all nuclear reactions involve conversion of one FORM of radioactive material to another FORM of the same thing, and the massive amount of energy that results from that transformation comes directly from the tiny difference of mass that results – not from the DESTRUCTION of mass but from the CONVERSION of it from matter to energy according to the equation: e=mc2.
Now, if you BELIEVE that there is some sort of error in that explanation, link for me a reference explaining what part of it is wrong.
Don’t vomit a lot of stupid crap about what I said or what you said – that’s not science. I’m not debating you on science. If you don’t know $hit, that’s not my problem.
Randy
9 years ago
@George Wells: Actually Mr. Wells, you have a 3rd grade view of “the law of conservation”. The law as you stated only applies in isolated systems. Matter can be changed into energy. In a system that is not isolated, when the potential energy of the binding of the atoms is released as active energy, the energy leaves the system and the mass of the matter is decreased. If you are going to comment on scientific issues Mr Wells, you should spend more time informing yourself.
George Wells
9 years ago
@Randy #76:
Found this:
“Consider the log example. When you burn a log, the mass of all the outputs approximately equals the mass of all the inputs, and yet fires are quite hot (at least in my opinion) so if heat is energy, where did the energy come from? The comment “mass is not converted to energy in a fire” refers to the famous equation E=mc^2 and in a nuclear reactor, the energy comes from a portion of a nucleon’s mass being converted to energy (a fraction of the binding energy per nucleon) but this does not happen in a chemical fire. So again, where does the energy come from? The energy (given off as heat and light) in a fire comes from the fact that wood (made of cellulose, a long, complicated hydrocarbon) is broken down in the presence of oxygen into things like CO2 and the energy comes from the bonds which are broken (i.e. the energy of the bonds in the end product are less then the energy of the original wood and the difference is released as heat, or infrared radiation). Thus, the same number and type of molecules is presence (you still have the same numbers of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms) you just have them in a different chemical form (thus the mass doesn’t change).
(Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/burning-calories-burning-wood-grams-to-cals.239589/)
This explanation isn’t ENTIRELY correct, since E=mc2 DOES require that the energy released from burning a log be accommodated by a minute decrease in the net mass of the air-log chemical system. What REALLY matters is that the amount of energy that is released by burning fossil fuels in air (or oxygen) releases so terribly little energy on the E=mc2 scale that it isn’t directly measurable. It IS calculable, but be prepared for something like a loss of 0.0000000000001 grams of weight per ton of burned fuel. You can do the math for yourself as long as you understand how to cancel out the units that your conversion factors require you to use. (“Energy” in units of “tons times miles-per-second squared” doesn’t make much sense to non-science folk, so you have to convert the answer the calculation gives you into “joules” and then, finally, into something that even you actually understand – like “calories” or “megatons.”)
“If you are going to comment on scientific issues Mr Wells, you should spend more time informing yourself.”
I took a degree in Chemistry with a minor in physics, and I worked my entire professional career in the field, doing this sort of computation routinely. It is elementary. But I wasn’t a teacher, and it isn’t my job to teach either chemistry or nuclear physics to you. I suggest you do your own research – it’s all readily available online – and convince yourself of the truth. You are not presently in possession of it, and to save face, you should know of what you speak before you (in language you should at last understand) open your pie-hole.
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: So you finally agree with what I said, that you started off disagreeing with. My statement from the beginning was that no one ‘consumes’ water they only use it.
You said:
You are misconstruing the sense of the word “consumption.”
Sorry, but you were the one ‘misconstruing’ the word. I said from the beginning that you only ‘use’ it, not consume it. Now you agree. So my scientific sense is not as bad as you were trying to show to impress Richie. Note that you also came around to my explanation of nuclear. Not made or consumed, only used.
“Consumption” means that the FORM of something changes without changing the total AMOUNT of something in existence. When YOU CONSUME food, you change the FORM of the food, you don’t DESTROY it.
As I clearly said several times.
My next move if you ‘insisted’ that water was consumed, I was going to ask you to write a balanced equation with water in one side and not in the other side. But I’m going to insist that every Molecule of H2O on one side will exist in an equal amount on the other side. Might be H’s and O’s but it will be the same amount as you started with.
Water conservation amounts to the same thing. Drinking a glass of water CONSUMES a glass of water, it doesn’t DESTROY a glass of water.
Au contrare, it only uses the water, it does not consume it.
your insistence at misusing the word ‘consume’ does not help your argument. It only makes you wrong on one more thing.
With ALMOST zero exception, all nuclear reactions involve conversion of one FORM of radioactive material to another FORM of the same thing,
Whoa!!!, just as I said in the beginning. Took you a while to see the light, but you’re getting there.
Now, if you BELIEVE that there is some sort of error in that explanation,
Why would I believe there was an error? It is exactly what I said in the beginning that you disagreed with. Someone has helped you to see the light.
I’m not debating you on science. If you don’t know $hit, that’s not my problem.
Well since you have now, slowly but surely, agreed 100% with my original statements and if you still think I don’t know sh*t then welcome to the brotherhood. How’s that crow?
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: 77
Though you won’t choose to believe it, there is nothing in 77 that I don’t agree with and understand. From your description of your major, I would estimate that I have had at least as many courses in both Chemistry and Physics as you did but also an equal number in Chem Engineering.
I’m not sure what point that Randy was attempting to make and I don’t understand his stating that your view of conservation was 3rd grade. I don’t recall studying the law of conservation of energy in the 3rd grade.
His statement that energy leaves the system is not equivalent to saying that the energy was consumed, or that the matter was ‘consumed’ again, it only changed form. Even if a molecule of H2O left the system, it only changed form and joined onto another ‘system’ it was neither created or destroyed.
George Wells
9 years ago
Redteam #78 & 79:
In your #74, you said:
” I said you have never ‘consumed’ any water, only used it.”
Those were YOUR words, not mine.
I never talked about CONSUMING anything, exactly because the words “CONSUME” and “CONSUMPTION” never appear in either Lavoisier’s “Law of the Conservation of Mass” (Mass is never destroyed) OR in the First Law of Thermodynamics (Energy is never destroyed.)
There is a good reason why those words are not used by scientists to describe the conservation of matter and energy, which was ultimately condensed into Einstein’s E=mc2 WITHOUT HAVING TO EVER USE THE WORD “CONSUME”.
Are you getting my drift?
I’m not eating crow.
I didn’t use the WRONG word, YOU did.
YOU used the word “consume,” which has no place in a discussion of the conservation of matter and energy.
It’s a biological term, sometimes used improperly in economics.
I’m glad that you seemingly understand things that your vocabulary has suggested you didn’t. Maybe you should pick your words more carefully next time.
Redteam
9 years ago
@George Wells: Finally you’ve realized where you were wrong. You argued relentlessly that I was wrong when I said you didn’t consume anything and now you’ve acknowledged that I was correct all the time:
I never talked about CONSUMING anything, exactly because the words “CONSUME” and “CONSUMPTION” never appear in either Lavoisier’s “Law of the Conservation of Mass” (Mass is never destroyed) OR in the First Law of Thermodynamics (Energy is never destroyed.)
There is a good reason why those words are not used by scientists to describe the conservation of matter and energy, which was ultimately condensed into Einstein’s E=mc2 WITHOUT HAVING TO EVER USE THE WORD “CONSUME”.
Are you getting my drift?
I’m not eating crow.
I understand your reluctance in having to admit that I was correct all along.
I’m glad that you seemingly understand things that your vocabulary has suggested you didn’t
@Redteam:
You long ago taught me that while you profess to have had a career that was science-related, the science that you understand to be true is not the same as the science that I know. Most of your last few posts are full of what I consider to be pure nonsense. I ALSO learned long ago that you are not teachable, so I’m not going to waste my time trying.
For the sake of anyone reading Redteam’s posts, I suggest researching his points for yourself. You will easily locate all the good science you need with a quick GOOGLE search of a topic, and you’ll find that Redteam doesn’t know Jack.
@George Wells: Thanks George—much appreciated.your time spent answering my questions
I don’t respond to RT anymore–not worth my time.
“Doesn’t know jack” tells his story.
@ Rich Wheeler #52:
Typical RT nonsense:
It would seem that this person who professes to have been employed in the field of science was unaware that nuclear power plants produce enormous amounts of radioactive waste – “spent” nuclear fuel rods, the contaminated water that was used to keep those rods cool during their use, and the radon gas that is produced by the radioactive decay of uranium. Not to mention the pollution that results when nuclear power plants malfunction – try telling the people who used to live near the Chernobyl and Fukushima plants that nuclear power does away with “all pollution.” Perhaps he was a janitor in the industry…
And:
Neither did man “invent” fire, but that didn’t stop the Allies from fire-bombing Dresden, it doesn’t stop a Tibetan monk from setting himself on fire in protest of Chinese occupation of his country, and it doesn’t stop children from playing with matches and burning down the homes they live in
.
When man burns naturally occurring elemental sulfur, it produces sulfur dioxide. When man bubbles sulfur dioxide into an aqueous slurry of powdered zinc metal and sodium hydroxide, it produces sodium dithionite – a powerful reducing agent. When man uses sodium dithionite to bleach wood pulp at paper mills, (reducing agents are good at doing that) methyl mercaptans are formed as unwanted by-products that are then released into the air around the pulp and paper mills, giving those places the obnoxious aroma of burning cabbage.
No, we didn’t “invent” sulfur, and neither did we “invent” methyl mercaptans, but we transform what we find in nature into far more toxic forms than are usually found in nature, and we do it all the time.
And so delightfully:
And inscrutably:
How can you continue to respond to someone who makes such alarmingly stupid errors and who asks such astonishingly stupid questions?
That’s a question even I cannot answer.
@George Wells: I guess you don’t understand that the “stupid errors” is nothing but an extension of liberal logic.
At Bill #54:
There is nothing “liberal” about being ignorant of basic chemistry or nuclear physics. Redteam’s ignorance isn’t partisan.
But thanks for defending his ignorance. Without it, YOUR side would have nothing.
@George Wells: Yeah, “our side” is who wants to drive the costs of energy (“necessarily skyrocket”) through the roof in order to pursue a solution to a problem that isn’t there. Nothing ignorant about that… no siree.
Nuclear power just happens to be the cleanest source of abundant energy (available at night and when the wind isn’t blowing, too), but let’s vilify it to satisfy some lunatic tree-huggers. THAT is the epitome of rational.
@Rich Wheeler:
From your experience, is ignorance bliss?
You’re spending too much time flying that rainbow flag in your chaps raising money to feed cows.
@George Wells: The reason you won’t challenge my statements are because they are true and you don’t like having to take the ‘wrong’ side to try to prove a point. I notice you didn’t bother to state exactly what it is you don’t know the truth about.
@George Wells: Okay George, dazzle us with your brilliance:
How much radioactive material is on the earth today that wasn’t here when the first nuclear plant was built?
If water is ‘consumed’ and not merely used, how much less water is on the earth and in it’s atmosphere that was here before mankind first showed up?
I’ll use a filter on your answer so the brilliance won’t hurt my eyes.
@George Wells:
and yet you have no problem answering a question such as: how many gallons of water is consumed to raise a cow? I notice you didn’t even know the answer to that question.
As far as whether you or that guy from gayfornia answers my questions or respond to my comments, I don’t give a damn. But I will note that you sure seem to like my answers about where gays come from more than you did Pete’s. But if there is a statement on this forum I want to respond to, I will, whether it comes from you or Richie. So you’re saying sulfur dioxide didn’t exist in nature until mankind came along and created it? Damn if man just hadn’t invented all that coal with sulfur in it. Surely they did since it is evil and only mankind is responsible for the evils of the world.
@George Wells:
It is so funny that you go through contortions to show how evil humans are to bleach pulp and form a smell like ‘burning cabbage’ wow, so terrible, but all God had to do was let some cabbages rot in the fields to create that same odor and he didn’t even give us the benefit of producing a bleached sheet of paper from all that ‘foul odor’…..
George, you don’t need to keep rehashing your beliefs in my education. It is very sufficient for dealing with you.
@George Wells:
As you should have recognized since you are such a dedicated reader of my comments, this was addressed to all those liberals that claim a baby that is not wholly outside of the body of the mother is not yet a human. That being true then a calf that is not wholly outside is not a cow, so it can be eaten without someone being a ‘meat eater’.
You don’t need to compliment me on my humor, since you ignored this comment and didn’t read it.
Please google ‘water consumption on earth’ and read all about how much the volume of water on earth has changed over time and then provide us all with that link. I’m sure it will show that the oceans are all about to disappear because we are ‘consuming’ all the water. I’ll wait.
@Bill: Bill, go easy on George, he has a severe handicap. Not sure if you know.
GW and RW, well, when challenged to Put up or Shut up, you both bailed, as expected. As Jack Nicholson said, you don’t want to know the truth, you can’t handle the truth.
@George Wells: Thanks again George–I see no reason to respond to a homophobe like RT, Seven posts in less than an hour–damn–when he starts ranting and raving he’s hilarious–much like Trump he just spouts and insults without even thinking. Waste of time.
@Rich Wheeler
Got kinda comical, didn’t it?
@Rich Wheeler: –
So you’re saying I have a fear of you? One thing for sure, you can’t link to any homophobe statement I have made on this blog.
But you did uphold your end of the agreement, you couldn’t put up so you’ve agreed to shut up. You might zip up the back of your chaps so you don’t catch a cold.
@George Wells: So continuing to comment about me is ‘ignoring’ me? I see you aren’t interested in pursuing your version of ‘consumption’ of water. better watch Richie though, he’ll be offering to loan you his chaps. Since you have teamed up with him, he’ll be bugging the crap out of you.
And how much more radioactive material is there now on the earth as a result of humans building nuke plants. I know you are just bristling to dazzle us with your brilliance, well, except there is no ‘there’ ‘there’..
@George Wells:RT is a result of that deep south home schooling and inbreeding—he’s not wired properly..
A proud Trumpeteer to boot–two fools
@Rich Wheeler:
Two wrong fools don’t make a right.
@Rich Wheeler:Ah, from the mind of a Longilander.
At least we didn’t leave ignorance as our goal as your folks obviously did.
I know you don’t have a memory, but I have not once said that I’m for Trump. Did you send George your spare set of chaps, yet? He said he didn’t have any. Need to go ahead and get them to him so he can squeeze his brain back up into his head. He’s still trying to figure out why we still have so much water on the earth when he’s been busily ‘consuming’ it all his life. But that may be related to his defective brain wiring.
@George Wells: Sitting around waiting for RW to comment again so you can ‘chirp’?
@Redteam #72:
No.
You want to debate scientific fact.
Scientific fact is not debatable, it is verifiable.
You do not understand how to verify a fact and you cannot be taught.
Therefore, it is a waste of time for me, or anyone else, to try to teach you.
Sorry, RT.
There are other FA threads where we can share ideas that do not depend on your mental competence in the field of science.
Go there.
@George Wells:
I don’t want to debate it, never said I did. You are the one that spoke of ‘consuming’ water. I said you have never ‘consumed’ any water, only used it. That is a fact, not debatable.
You are the one that said Nuclear plants create nuclear materials. I said it does not. It is a fact that it does not, so you’re correct that your point is wrong.
Tell me how you ‘verified’ that you have ‘consumed’ water? Or do you perhaps not understand that you can not do that? And you think I’m the one having a hard time with this?
Give me just one example of how you ‘consumed’ some water. Not used it, ‘consumed’ it. i.e., it no longer exists.
I have no problem learning. I graduated in 4 years with high honors in 2 fields, one science and one engineering.
I challenge you to answer my two questions, on water ‘consumed’ and nuclear material. Don’t believe you will even attempt to give a scientifically correct answer.
@Redteam #74:
OK.
First:
You are misconstruing the sense of the word “consumption.” Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The word “consumption” is not identical to the word “destruction.” “Destruction” means that the total amount of something in existence changes. “Consumption” means that the FORM of something changes without changing the total AMOUNT of something in existence. When YOU CONSUME food, you change the FORM of the food, you don’t DESTROY it.
Water conservation amounts to the same thing. Drinking a glass of water CONSUMES a glass of water, it doesn’t DESTROY a glass of water. Cattle CONSUME water (and feed) but they don’t DESTROY it. Same thing with crops.
The EXACT same principle applies to the nuclear transmutation of radionuclides. With ALMOST zero exception, all nuclear reactions involve conversion of one FORM of radioactive material to another FORM of the same thing, and the massive amount of energy that results from that transformation comes directly from the tiny difference of mass that results – not from the DESTRUCTION of mass but from the CONVERSION of it from matter to energy according to the equation: e=mc2.
Now, if you BELIEVE that there is some sort of error in that explanation, link for me a reference explaining what part of it is wrong.
Don’t vomit a lot of stupid crap about what I said or what you said – that’s not science. I’m not debating you on science. If you don’t know $hit, that’s not my problem.
@George Wells: Actually Mr. Wells, you have a 3rd grade view of “the law of conservation”. The law as you stated only applies in isolated systems. Matter can be changed into energy. In a system that is not isolated, when the potential energy of the binding of the atoms is released as active energy, the energy leaves the system and the mass of the matter is decreased. If you are going to comment on scientific issues Mr Wells, you should spend more time informing yourself.
@Randy #76:
Found this:
“Consider the log example. When you burn a log, the mass of all the outputs approximately equals the mass of all the inputs, and yet fires are quite hot (at least in my opinion) so if heat is energy, where did the energy come from? The comment “mass is not converted to energy in a fire” refers to the famous equation E=mc^2 and in a nuclear reactor, the energy comes from a portion of a nucleon’s mass being converted to energy (a fraction of the binding energy per nucleon) but this does not happen in a chemical fire. So again, where does the energy come from? The energy (given off as heat and light) in a fire comes from the fact that wood (made of cellulose, a long, complicated hydrocarbon) is broken down in the presence of oxygen into things like CO2 and the energy comes from the bonds which are broken (i.e. the energy of the bonds in the end product are less then the energy of the original wood and the difference is released as heat, or infrared radiation). Thus, the same number and type of molecules is presence (you still have the same numbers of Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms) you just have them in a different chemical form (thus the mass doesn’t change).
(Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/burning-calories-burning-wood-grams-to-cals.239589/)
This explanation isn’t ENTIRELY correct, since E=mc2 DOES require that the energy released from burning a log be accommodated by a minute decrease in the net mass of the air-log chemical system. What REALLY matters is that the amount of energy that is released by burning fossil fuels in air (or oxygen) releases so terribly little energy on the E=mc2 scale that it isn’t directly measurable. It IS calculable, but be prepared for something like a loss of 0.0000000000001 grams of weight per ton of burned fuel. You can do the math for yourself as long as you understand how to cancel out the units that your conversion factors require you to use. (“Energy” in units of “tons times miles-per-second squared” doesn’t make much sense to non-science folk, so you have to convert the answer the calculation gives you into “joules” and then, finally, into something that even you actually understand – like “calories” or “megatons.”)
“If you are going to comment on scientific issues Mr Wells, you should spend more time informing yourself.”
I took a degree in Chemistry with a minor in physics, and I worked my entire professional career in the field, doing this sort of computation routinely. It is elementary. But I wasn’t a teacher, and it isn’t my job to teach either chemistry or nuclear physics to you. I suggest you do your own research – it’s all readily available online – and convince yourself of the truth. You are not presently in possession of it, and to save face, you should know of what you speak before you (in language you should at last understand) open your pie-hole.
@George Wells: So you finally agree with what I said, that you started off disagreeing with. My statement from the beginning was that no one ‘consumes’ water they only use it.
You said:
Sorry, but you were the one ‘misconstruing’ the word. I said from the beginning that you only ‘use’ it, not consume it. Now you agree. So my scientific sense is not as bad as you were trying to show to impress Richie. Note that you also came around to my explanation of nuclear. Not made or consumed, only used.
As I clearly said several times.
My next move if you ‘insisted’ that water was consumed, I was going to ask you to write a balanced equation with water in one side and not in the other side. But I’m going to insist that every Molecule of H2O on one side will exist in an equal amount on the other side. Might be H’s and O’s but it will be the same amount as you started with.
Au contrare, it only uses the water, it does not consume it.
your insistence at misusing the word ‘consume’ does not help your argument. It only makes you wrong on one more thing.
Whoa!!!, just as I said in the beginning. Took you a while to see the light, but you’re getting there.
Why would I believe there was an error? It is exactly what I said in the beginning that you disagreed with. Someone has helped you to see the light.
Well since you have now, slowly but surely, agreed 100% with my original statements and if you still think I don’t know sh*t then welcome to the brotherhood. How’s that crow?
@George Wells: 77
Though you won’t choose to believe it, there is nothing in 77 that I don’t agree with and understand. From your description of your major, I would estimate that I have had at least as many courses in both Chemistry and Physics as you did but also an equal number in Chem Engineering.
I’m not sure what point that Randy was attempting to make and I don’t understand his stating that your view of conservation was 3rd grade. I don’t recall studying the law of conservation of energy in the 3rd grade.
His statement that energy leaves the system is not equivalent to saying that the energy was consumed, or that the matter was ‘consumed’ again, it only changed form. Even if a molecule of H2O left the system, it only changed form and joined onto another ‘system’ it was neither created or destroyed.
Redteam #78 & 79:
In your #74, you said:
Those were YOUR words, not mine.
I never talked about CONSUMING anything, exactly because the words “CONSUME” and “CONSUMPTION” never appear in either Lavoisier’s “Law of the Conservation of Mass” (Mass is never destroyed) OR in the First Law of Thermodynamics (Energy is never destroyed.)
There is a good reason why those words are not used by scientists to describe the conservation of matter and energy, which was ultimately condensed into Einstein’s E=mc2 WITHOUT HAVING TO EVER USE THE WORD “CONSUME”.
Are you getting my drift?
I’m not eating crow.
I didn’t use the WRONG word, YOU did.
YOU used the word “consume,” which has no place in a discussion of the conservation of matter and energy.
It’s a biological term, sometimes used improperly in economics.
I’m glad that you seemingly understand things that your vocabulary has suggested you didn’t. Maybe you should pick your words more carefully next time.
@George Wells: Finally you’ve realized where you were wrong. You argued relentlessly that I was wrong when I said you didn’t consume anything and now you’ve acknowledged that I was correct all the time:
I understand your reluctance in having to admit that I was correct all along.
Maybe it was the ‘grammer’.