Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
    ...........................back in 1973. In that time I became the "go to" student in the class for other students. [/url]

    Somebody has to ask it.


    ​LINK?
    ~~I was not. I was. I am not. I do not care

    Comment


    • LARRY L
      LARRY L commented
      Editing a comment
      LOL

  • #47
    Originally posted by wasgtrjones View Post



    No, what you actually posted is this: "O2 and O3 are both just oxygen, but a minor variable makes one essential for animal life and the other poisonous. It doesn't mean oxygen is bad for you." (Comment #6 on post 19)

    There is a LOT more difference between O2 and O3 than 'a minor variable'


    No there isn't. The minor variable is this: One has two Oxygen atoms and the other has three. But the impact is huge. And that was my point. Start with two identical atoms, add a third, and you come up with something with completely different properties. That is what is so fascinating.

    To the average person it's confusing. It is seen as "Take two white leggo blocks and stick 'em together, and you have a block twice as big. Add a third identical white leggo block, and not it is the same thing, just bigger.

    But Chemistry doesn't work like that. Add a third block and suddenly it is something else. It is equally fascinating that when you burn hydrogen, the exhaust is water. This is all chemistry 101, but to those that have not studied it, it is the window to a seriously interesting subject.
    All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

    Comment


    • #48
      Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
      That was me. And I didn't say they were the same thing. I said they were MADE OF EXACTLY the same thing, but one is necessary for life and the other is a poison to life.

      You do realize what "O2" means, and what "O3" means, right? I mean, you know what the "O" means and what the numbers 2 and 3 mean, right?

      If not, you really should look it up.

      I only took two weeks of Chemistry back in 1973. In that time I became the "go to" student in the class for other students. A teacher's strike ended my days at that school, though. Fortunately, I went into computers instead. Pays a lot better and is almost as interesting.

      So yeah, outside of high school I have 2 weeks of "formal" chemistry education. But I read.

      Edit: Here you go. There is even a nice movie. You don't have to read. http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/atmo/atmo.../o3_creat.html
      Wellpers, for some reason I remember reading what wasgtrjones remembers reading. We remember you saying, 'O2 and O3 are both just oxygen, but a minor variable makes one essential for animal life and the other poisonous. It doesn't mean oxygen is bad for you.'

      O2 and O3 are different chemicals with different internal and external characteristics. A chemical reaction is required to get from one to another. The 2 and 3 are not a minor variable. And most oxygen species are dangerous to us. O2 has a stable full valence shell, but if you're in the presence of O1, you're screwed because it's gonna demand some covalent bonding wherever it can.

      And yes, it has been clear that you haven't studied chemistry, and that's one reason why you have a hard time understanding the greenhouse effect. Don't try to intuit physical/chemical stuff about nature, medicine, climate, and what's safe for humans, because when your intuition leads you to thoughts like 'oxygen is basically safe for humans' then you know your intuition is useless on matters of chemistry. If you want to speak on these matters with any expertise, or if you want to really challenge the greenhouse effect and anthropogenic climate change, then sign up for some classes at your local community college and spend a couple years learning. It will take more than a couple weeks. The knowledge you'll learn came from hundreds of years of observations, tests, disproven intuitions, and more observations and tests.
      Last edited by arcadesonfire; 09-19-2017, 09:32 AM.
      My band!:
      www.steelphantoms.com/
      my stage stuff:
      fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

      Comment


      • #49
        Originally posted by fretmess View Post


        Somebody has to ask it.


        ​LINK?
        Can't give a link for a personal experience. Sorry.
        All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

        Comment


        • #50
          Originally posted by fretmess View Post


          Somebody has to ask it.


          ​LINK?

          You remember that kid in school who thought everyone was laughing WITH him when they were instead all laughing AT him....?
          ______________

          Comment


          • #51
            Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
            Wellpers, for some reason I remember reading what wasgtrjones remembers reading. We remember you saying, 'O2 and O3 are both just oxygen, but a minor variable makes one essential for animal life and the other poisonous. It doesn't mean [COLOR=#333333][COLOR=#333333]oxygen is bad for you.'

            O2 and O3 are different chemicals with different internal and external characteristics. A chemical reaction is required to get from one to another. The 2 and 3 are not a minor variable. And most oxygen species are dangerous to us. O2 has a stable full valence shell, but if you're in the presence of O1, you're screwed because it's gonna demand some covalent bonding wherever it can.
            Nothing I disagree with there. My post stands. You have agreed with it and just added more detail.

            Here is the funny part: I am stating it for "lay people" and it coincides with what I do for a living: break down the seemingly incomprehensible to a language that the average lay-person can understand. I remember teaching a class once in the northeast (I forget which city) and the manager of my students remarked that if they had known it was that easy they would have been using the software I was teaching a long time ago.

            I pointed out two things briefly in my post:

            1. There is very little difference in the chemical makeup of O2 and O3.
            2. But the results are VERY different.

            Oh, and my use of the word "oxygen" in my post was what a lay person understands to mean the oxygen we breathe (O2). You don't need to get all technical on a musician's site. And that is why I avoided, quite intentionally, any discussion of free radicals.
            All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

            Comment


            • #52
              Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
              Boy, my one comment turned the whole thread topic...Anyhow it is nice to see you pop in Mr arc. Just do not go overboard and burn out here, right?

              My one question is, after doing a bit of reading and studying, I have a very hard time rejecting all the samples we have of soft tissue in now so many dinosaurs that were found as being somehow 70 million years old or whatever.
              I'm not sure I understand your second sentence. But I would ask that you keep in mind one thing we talked about with fossils: if they're 70 million years old, they're not the actual flesh that was once alive on Earth. Other elements in the Earth slowly biodegraded the flesh; in the process, these other elements filled in where the flesh had been, and in doing so, it filled out the exact shape and patterns that the flesh had had.

              From your sentence there, it seems like you now accept that we have fossils that are truly 70 million years old; that would be a big change from your old thoughts, and that's totally cool if you've been reading stuff and have new thoughts, but I'm wondering if maybe you meant that to be phrased differently.
              My band!:
              www.steelphantoms.com/
              my stage stuff:
              fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

              Comment


              • #53
                Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                No there isn't. The minor variable is this: One has two Oxygen atoms and the other has three. But the impact is huge. And that was my point. Start with two identical atoms, add a third, and you come up with something with completely different properties. That is what is so fascinating.

                To the average person it's confusing. It is seen as "Take two white leggo blocks and stick 'em together, and you have a block twice as big. Add a third identical white leggo block, and not it is the same thing, just bigger.

                But Chemistry doesn't work like that. Add a third block and suddenly it is something else. It is equally fascinating that when you burn hydrogen, the exhaust is water. This is all chemistry 101, but to those that have not studied it, it is the window to a seriously interesting subject.
                Do you want to rephrase that one too?
                My band!:
                www.steelphantoms.com/
                my stage stuff:
                fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                Comment


                • #54
                  Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                  And yes, it has been clear that you haven't studied chemistry, and that's one reason why you have a hard time understanding the greenhouse effect.
                  Two things:
                  1. What is clear is that I have not "formally" studied chemistry.
                  2. I DO understand the greenhouse effect as taught and explained. The problem is that the concept has been politicized and we don't really understand it that well. There is not enough talk about the effect of water vapor, cosmic rays, solar radiation, etc. And the dirty little secret is that it is a branch of science that is still in its infancy. i.e. nobody understands it all that well, YET, though we understand more than we did a decade or a century ago. This is why all the CO2 based AGW climate models have been proven dead wrong.

                  I intentionally don't use classroom patois. We're not in a classroom. We're not in a lab. This methodology serves me well in my occupation and everywhere else, except where there are those looking for any excuse to skewer the overarching point I'm trying to make.

                  i.e. you are getting into "spelling nazi" territory.
                  All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                  Comment


                  • fretmess
                    fretmess commented
                    Editing a comment
                    LOL......"go to" guy.

                  • RobRoy
                    RobRoy commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Yeah. The other kids kept coming to me and asking questions about the assignment, the expectations, the periodic table, etc. I just seemed to have a knack for it.

                    I'm really glad I got out of it, though, I worked with and managed two programmers at completely different companies who had been chemists by trade and went into programming. I asked both why and they said there was a lot more money in it.

                    One of them had worked at an oil refinery. I learned a lot of very interesting stuff about what goes into producing the different brands of gasoline you see at the pump.

                • #55
                  Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                  Do you want to rephrase that one too?
                  No, I do not. The chemical reaction produces water. You are being intentionally obtuse.

                  If you want to word it "more precisely", be my guest. We are not in a classroom. We are in the real world.

                  BTW, I learned that one in Jr. High (now called middleschool).
                  Last edited by RobRoy; 09-19-2017, 09:54 AM.
                  All text I enter is my opinion. If I feel it necessary to prove it, I'll back it up with links.

                  Comment


                  • #56
                    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

                    I'm not sure I understand your second sentence. But I would ask that you keep in mind one thing we talked about with fossils: if they're 70 million years old, they're not the actual flesh that was once alive on Earth. Other elements in the Earth slowly biodegraded the flesh; in the process, these other elements filled in where the flesh had been, and in doing so, it filled out the exact shape and patterns that the flesh had had.

                    From your sentence there, it seems like you now accept that we have fossils that are truly 70 million years old; that would be a big change from your old thoughts, and that's totally cool if you've been reading stuff and have new thoughts, but I'm wondering if maybe you meant that to be phrased differently.
                    Researchers have detected molecules like proteins, sugars, pigments, and DNA , as well as intact cells. In some cases, skin, ligaments, retinas, bones, and blood vessels in the so called millions of year old fossils. Yet we have a good handle of the decay rates of bone collagen at a given temperature. It cannot last into the millions of years. So if the fossils are 40 to 300 million years old from what was said in some samples age. They must discredit the decay rates tested well in labs.
                    Last edited by LARRY L; 09-19-2017, 10:04 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #57
                      Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
                      Researchers have detected molecules like proteins, sugars, pigments, and DNA , as well as intact cells. In some cases, skin, ligaments, retinas, bones, and blood vessels in the so called millions of year old fossils. Yet we have a good handle of the decay rates of bone collagen at a given temperature. It cannot last into the millions of years. So if the fossils are 40 to 300 million years old from what was said in some samples age. They must discredit the decay rates tested well in labs.
                      No one believes in fossils, Larry.
                      I make them in my basement.
                      They're fake. They're all fake.
                      Researchers make it up to grab government money.
                      Fake researchers and fake DNA.
                      No one believes in DNA.
                      DNA is fake.
                      There's no mention of it in the bible.
                      The bible is real.
                      That is all.
                      To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

                      Comment


                      • #58
                        Originally posted by RobRoy View Post
                        Nothing I disagree with there. My post stands. You have agreed with it and just added more detail.

                        Here is the funny part: I am stating it for "lay people" and it coincides with what I do for a living: break down the seemingly incomprehensible to a language that the average lay-person can understand. I remember teaching a class once in the northeast (I forget which city) and the manager of my students remarked that if they had known it was that easy they would have been using the software I was teaching a long time ago.

                        I pointed out two things briefly in my post:

                        1. There is very little difference in the chemical makeup of O2 and O3.
                        2. But the results are VERY different.

                        Oh, and my use of the word "oxygen" in my post was what a lay person understands to mean the oxygen we breathe (O2). You don't need to get all technical on a musician's site. And that is why I avoided, quite intentionally, any discussion of free radicals.
                        Well, everybody here on HCPP took high school chemistry. We know the difference between CO and CO2, or between O2 and O3. We don't need you to give us lessons that dumb it down and treat us like 8th graders; we're educated adults. If you haven't noticed from the level of political discourse and musical talent here, people on HCPP are generally above par in many respects. I'm accustomed to posters treating each other like that, so when I read your post, it came across to me like you thought you had some special knowledge that the rest of us didn't know; since you called a difference between chemicals a 'simple variable,' it sounded to me like you weren't up to speed on chemistry.

                        I have come to this forum for years because so many smart people have been here; I imagine that all being musicians correlates with the smarts. We've had scientists, religious history experts, and still have a number of econ experts; I've learned when it's my place to ask questions (like on matters of econ) and when it's time to speak with some expertise (like on biological evolution). But there's no need to automatically treat each other like dumb 'lay people.' Everyone's pretty smart. We know, for example, that hydrogen + oxygen will give you water.

                        I don't know why you even brought that bit about O2 and O3 to the discussion, and it seems like your post disappeared so I can't go back and see why at this point.
                        My band!:
                        www.steelphantoms.com/
                        my stage stuff:
                        fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                        Comment


                        • #59
                          Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
                          Researchers have detected molecules like proteins, sugars, pigments, and DNA , as well as intact cells. In some cases, skin, ligaments, retinas, bones, and blood vessels in the so called millions of year old fossils. Yet we have a good handle of the decay rates of bone collagen at a given temperature. It cannot last into the millions of years. So if the fossils are 40 to 300 million years old from what was said in some samples age. They must discredit the decay rates tested well in labs.
                          OK! The key word is fossils! This is very easy. I explained it in the past and in the post above. Here it is again:

                          They're not the actual flesh that was once alive on Earth. Other elements in the Earth slowly biodegraded the flesh; in the process, these other elements filled in where the flesh had been, and in doing so, it filled out the exact shape and patterns that the flesh had had.

                          This process is fossilization. Fossils are physical imprints of what was buried. Fossils are not made of the once-living flesh. They are made of earthly elements that do last for millions of years, holding the same shape.
                          My band!:
                          www.steelphantoms.com/
                          my stage stuff:
                          fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                          Comment


                          • #60
                            If you really want to slash foods global warming enmissiins than switch to a plant based diet.

                            You'll also be healthier and live longer

                            https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcn...amp/ncna542886
                            i like palin.
                            i think she would rattle some cages and that's what america needs.
                            ~ yumpy

                            Comment













                            Working...
                            X