On Apr 19, 5:52=A0pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Kent's Death-Rage <kdth...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote another spittle-flecked
> rant:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kurt Lochner noted the absense of any significant response from:
>
> > >Kent's Death-Rage <kdth...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> continued whining impotently:
>
> > > > On Apr 19, 10:38 am, Kurt Lochner restored:
>
> > > > >Kent's Death-Rage <kdth...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> continued whining
impotently:=
>
> > > > > > Kent's Death-Rage <kdth...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> was still whining
impotent=
ly at:
> ---------->
> > > > > > >Daltons principle of partial pressures is that in a mixture
of =
gases,
> > > > > > >each gas contributes to the pressure according to it's
percenta=
ge of
> > > > > > >the volume. If the other gas were removed, the gas would have
t=
he
> > > > > > >pressure it would have if alone in the total volume.
>
> > > > > That is also incorrect..
>
> > > >
>http://www.bookrags.com/research/daltons-law-of-partial-pressures-w=
oc/
>
> > > > > "Dalton's law of partial pressures can be mathematically
expressed=
> > > > > =A0by the following. If Pt is the total pressure of a mixture of
g=
ases
> > > > > =A0and P1, P2, etc. are the pressures that each gaseous
component =
would
> > > > > =A0exert by itself, then the total pressure is given by
>
> > > > > =A0 =A0Pt =3D P1 + P2 + etc.
>
> > > > > =A0Dalton's law of partial pressures tells us that each gas
behave=
s
> > > > > =A0independently of the other gases in the mixture, i.e., each
exe=
rts
> > > > > =A0its own pressure (the partial pressure) providing the gases
do
> > > > > =A0not react.
>
> > > > > =A0The total pressure of a mixture of gases is a function of the
n=
umber
> > > > > =A0of moles of gas present, irrespective of what type of gas is
> > > > > =A0considered. One mole of any gas has the same volume as one
mole=
of
> > > > > =A0any other gas, providing the temperature and pressure are the
s=
ame.
> > > > > =A0This is the basic theory behind Avogadro's law. One mole of
gas=
> > > > > =A0under the same conditions as one mole of a second gas will
has =
the
> > > > > =A0same number of particles as the second gas. The same volume
> > > > > =A0(number of moles) of two gases exerts the same pressure in a
> > > > > =A0container because each gas has the same number of particles
and=
> > > > > =A0hence the same number of collisions between the particles and
t=
he
> > > > > =A0container walls. Similarly one mole of gas in a fixed volume
ex=
erts
> > > > > =A0the same pressure as one mole of any other gas in an
identical
> > > > > =A0volume. If both gases are in the same container then the
total
> > > > > =A0pressure is twice the pressure exerted by either of the
gases,
> > > > > =A0providing the same number of moles of each gas was present.
The=
> > > > > =A0pressure exerted by any one of these gases is the partial
press=
ure.
>
> > > > > > > Therefore if one has 2 liters of N2, and 3 liters of CO2, at
c=
ommon
> > > > > > > temperature and pressure, and mixes them, one will have 5
lite=
rs of
> > > > > > > gas mixture at the same temperature and pressure.
>
> > > > > That would be entirely incorrect..
>
> > > >Your rendition or copy and paste is correct.
>
> > > Yes, and I was already aware of that, from years of study..
>
> > > >It exactly sup****ts whatI said.
>
> > > That would be incorrect..
>
> > > >You need to get off of your [..]
>
> > > You first..
>
> > > >5 liters of gas with 2 liters N2 and 3 liters CO2,
>
> > > Nope, get back to me when you learn what a 'mole' is,
> > > in regards to gases and partial pressures..
>
> > > >So now you are trying to prove yourself insane?
>
> > > Nope, just proving that you don't even know the correct
> > > units to use with your inane babblings..
>
> > > --Which is precisely why you're utterly wrong, every time..
>
> >Science at it's finest. Establishment of the scientific method
>
> It would be nice if you would learn to use the proper units of
> measure when you refer to the gas law, but it's self-evident
> that you're only a 'google scholar' in that regard..
>
> >The fields of knowledge which exists in books and in academic
> >academies where the free exchange of knowledge breeds the
> >continuation of exploration of nature and mathematics [..]
>
> I do not presume to tell you how to frame a house, so return
> that by not telling me how "science" is conducted, as I've
> spent a great deal of time and money to learn how to do
> the mathematics and physics properly..
>
> I'd also be willing to sit down and visit with you, bring the
> proper textbooks and show you how you're straining at gnats
> and swallowing elephants, as regards the global warming
> hypothesis..
>
> Otherwise, you have four days left to retract these false statements..
>
> 1.) "And all the while keep up your childish lie that you dishonest
> =A0 =A0 =A0and inept creeps that hide behind your cloak of 'science',
are
> =A0 =A0 =A0interested in benifits to humanity."
>
> 2.) "You and your fascist Nazi prick Greenie Wienies can go straight
> =A0 =A0 =A0to hell where you belong. You have no science. You have
succede=
d
> =A0 =A0 =A0in intimidating the scientific community into submission.
>
> 3.) "Facts you can deny, but which will eventulally be the DEATH of
> =A0 =A0 =A0you. And successful criminal prosecution for all of those
with
> =A0 =A0 =A0complicity in this major crime against humanity and the
people
> =A0 =A0 =A0of the US."
>
> 4.) "So what are you going to do quack, for pointing out that you
> =A0 =A0 =A0are a liar and a punk who should probably be sitting in
prison?=
> =A0 =A0 =A0Attack me with a hostile and malicious civil suit for
libiel???=
> =A0 =A0 =A0Where you can bring in all the dishonest and corrupt assholes
> =A0 =A0 =A0to back you up?? And then what when you lose this?? Murder
me??=
> =A0 =A0 =A0Attack my family???"
>
> --Your move..-
I will retract those statements. I don't know who you are and I don't
care. You must have a much fuller life than the characterizations I
made, being angry about your refusal or inablity to recognize and
discuss my rational statements about physics and chemistry.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/tree/browse_frm/thread/358=
e4e88bf72d3ad/8dae4dd3f506befd?hl=3Den&rnum=3D1&_done=3D%2Fgroup%2Falt.globa=
l-warming%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F358e4e88bf72d3ad%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%2=
6&scoring=3Dd#doc_8dae4dd3f506befd
You are wrong about your insistence that I do not have the proper
units. But you have the right to your scientific beliefs. So leave me
the hell alone, because I will always know the simple math which I
know.
You should admit that I am right about the very simple concept of
partial pressures, and how these can be figured using the inverse
relation****p of P/V.
I'll let you go.
I have no litigation with you, you have no valid litigation with me.
This is no matter for any civil court.
I have no further interest in discusions with you. You seem to be more
concerned with yourself, than in objective science or in apersonal
discussion. If your form of theoretical science is the basis of AGW,
than it is flawed and should be reveiwed rather than accepted by
people as valid. Obviously none of the believers are willing to
correct you.
The point of the perfect gas law, is that pressure can remain the same
as temperature increases.
This means that the temperature is not soley the motions or kinetic
energy of the molecules.
This means that that the presumption that O2 and N2 are transparent to
infrared radiation is false. It can be demonstrated by evaluation at
different temperatures, that quantities of heat are transfered by
gases which are not soley of the conduction or transmission of kinetic
energy. This is proof that all gases absorb infrared, just as a CO2
laser demonstrates that CO2 absorbs and radiates in the bands that are
not the dark spectroscopic bands.
This means that the belief that minute quantities of CO2 in the
atmosphere affect temperature or that even smaller minute quantities
of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect temperature is false.
There is no justification for affecting peoples lives according to
this false theory of gases and the scaremongering of climate
catastrophe.
By pretending to be personally offended or damaged, you are only
wi****ng to suppress dissent. The dictated dogma of theoretical science
is invalid and can be proved to be so by valid scientists not under
intimidation. Someday this will occur, regardless of what happens to
me.
KD
|
