I don't believe he is genuine exchemist, and I think that is obvious in how he continually questions all answers he has been given in near all threads he starts and making stuff up [like the Sun made of disks because it rotates at different rates depending on latitude]
Seems to me that's his right. Unless he's using it to evade answers, which is a different criticism. In this thread? What he does in other threads should have no bearing on this one. That is an example of ad hominem. Now, I'm not saying I'm impressed with him, but if he's gonna be slagged it should be for valid reasons. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mr. I am patiently avoiding you, but you are keeping pestering me . As you said this is science forum , not your personal podium running for a position at the forum. Let me tell you Science is based on questioning, and not accept yo what some one say based on reading . I have worked for 17 years in research and development laboratory. If people would not question , no new information nor new product would be on the market . I can give you some change for your nastiness. But I rather wish that God bless you. and amen for that.
Perhaps I am somewhat "biased" by inferring his answers/questions in other threads, but the few answers/questions below, at least to me, suggest he is not exactly fair dinkum...hence my claim he is a fraud. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure science is based on questioning, as long as those questions are a genuine effort to gain knowledge: You have worked 17 years in research? and yet some of your questions are so basic and student level. You in my opinion, seem to have an agenda: If that offends you then I'm sorry.
Maybe, but so what? The adage applies just as well: address the argument, not the arguer. I guess the point is, there's more than just you and him here. We're all here to address the issue at-hand. Calling someone a fraud doesn't really help the rest of us or help the thread. Anyway, let's not derail the thread any further with this sidebar.
Agreed: I'm sure most are convinced [if anyone needed to be convinced] that water can only exist in three phases, solid, liquid, and gas.
I applaud you , specially last line Along with the discussion of the sun which is an interesting subject as I pocked in . It become interesting the increase solar flare between 2008 to 2009 strong inflection and reached a plateau up to present The other . there is a photosphere and a chromosphere , sort is lique on the earth the base and clouds and since there are empty area in the chromosphere . I wonder that allows to move independently of the Photosphere
Well, if you kick open the door to your stuff about the sun, then it's no longer an ad hom if someone attacks it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How is this related to the three phases of water?
Sorry I posted it un the wrong opening it was meant to rotation of the sun. To this topic. is about Clouds were they form, what is in the clouds, in what are they form, why the droplets or particle stay there ( clouds ) Apparently the particle have some physical shape , They do'nt fall down unless some action brings the together , then they coalesce and come down as liquid water and we see rain . In other words evaporate as gas , collect at given height and temp. it have a body which scatters light This is the topic. Sorry I got confused because "he " is basically my challenge in the rotation of the sun
Here's a reasonable scientific explanation, not too many can be confused about...... http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleprecipitation.html The clouds floating overhead contain water vapor and cloud droplets, which are small drops of condensed water. These droplets are way too small to fall as precipitation, but they are large enough to form visible clouds. Water is continually evaporating and condensing in the sky. If you look closely at a cloud you can see some parts disappearing (evaporating) while other parts are growing (condensation). Most of the condensed water in clouds does not fall as precipitation because their fall speed is not large enough to overcome updrafts which support the clouds. For precipitation to happen, first tiny water droplets must condense on even tinier dust, salt, or smoke particles, which act as a nucleus. Water droplets may grow as a result of additional condensation of water vapor when the particles collide. If enough collisions occur to produce a droplet with a fall velocity which exceeds the cloud updraft speed, then it will fall out of the cloud as precipitation. This is not a trivial task since millions of cloud droplets are required to produce a single raindrop. A more efficient mechanism (known as the Bergeron-Findeisen process) for producing a precipitation-sized drop is through a process which leads to the rapid growth of ice crystals at the expense of the water vapor present in a cloud. These crystals may fall as snow, or melt and fall as rain.
In essence, and in an effort to simplistically minimise why clouds form and why it rains, we can sum it up with three scientific principals of knowledge: EVAPORATION: The energy and heat from the Sun affects Oceans and bodies of water on Earth by evaporating some of it, governed by temperatures. CONDENSATION: The water vapour that has been evaporated, will in time condense into water droplets which form what we observe as clouds, based again on temperatures and pressures. PRECIPITATION: As the water vapour condenses into clouds and they become heavy, they literally fall as rain, again based on temperatures and pressures.
Returning to the subject, if you have worked in a research lab for this length of time - at least, if you have done so in any scientific capacity - you should be able to take in what I have been saying about the kinetic theory of gas pressure, viz. how it arises from molecules rebounding, which stationary water droplets in cloud will not do. Do you understand this now?
I understand about kinetics . I have a problem with tour point. that particles are drifting . As you said about concentration increase , apparently you are missing , the point that increase concentration introduce volume and volume refers to boundary and as you bring the particle closer to gether you are compressing, the free space for the particles . The problem here is that you folks are not willing to accept that a force os applied to the system.
I give up. I do not believe you have worked in a lab as any form of scientist. Do you have any qualification in physical science? I must say I really doubt it. You may have cleaned the bottles or looked after the stores, but no half way competent scientist would talk as you do. I'm now out of this ridiculous discussion.
It appears that you do not. The last sentence is where your error is. The particles of water do not compress the air. If there is dust in the air do you think the pressure is higher? The air is not contained in a closed volume so if you add water particles the air is not compressed it just moves out of the way. When you say you worked R&D for 17 years what did you do?
You can be out, there us no problem . You in you model are also forgetting that there are gas molecules in between the particles . in your model you ignore partial pressure of water vapor . Why don't counter my point by point instead coming out with insults . Your ridicules view of droplets drifting alone. You don't seam to understand when you invoke density you mention a fixed volume , that makes increase in density.
This has been done, multiple times in this thread. Your lack of desire - or lack of ability - to understand the physics of condensation is beyond our power. I'm all for education, but I think this is a waste of my time as well.
