fosborn_ wrote:I get the impression, You think, as if the OP has proven anything about his hypothesis.
Aardwolf wrote:On the contrary if you understood anything about the scientific method theories cannot be proven, only disproven. You have failed and are failing to disprove the premise of the theory. You won’t even engage the points I made about the papers.
Hmmm.. seems like a subjective statement to me..
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0 ... ceworks_06
Misconception: Science proves ideas.
Misconception: Science can only disprove ideas.
Correction:Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, but may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspective
Aardwolf wrote:Who knows? Show me some genuine empirical evidence and we can discuss. Unfortunately you can’t do that because none exists so we’re stuck with theoretical assumptions.
fosborn_ wrote:And how do water droplets get liberated from a water surface?
Aardwolf wrote:Unfortunately you can’t do that because none exists so we’re stuck with theoretical assumptions...See above.
Then we have to work with what is implicit in the papers. I don't think we are too far apart except in levels of confidence an d what is relevant.
fosborn_ wrote: If there is a magic with enough energy to break droplets free from the surface tension, why not enough to remove molecules themselves?
Aardwolf wrote:So you accept that both mechanisms are possible
fosborn_ wrote:No, for me the current model is still much better.
Aardwolf wrote:Yet you fail to discuss any of the limitations of the papers you provided. What specifically, makes them better? It's not because of evidence.
ok, will in another post..
This shrinking droplets looses surface tension, that tells you droplets will evaporate and are evaporating.
Aardwolf wrote:I don’t remember anyone here saying evaporation is impossible.
Aardwolf wrote:So you are open to the existence of smaller particles you just don't want them to hang around for long. So please explain why smaller particles of say 2 or 3 H2O atoms rush to find other droplets yet a particle of 1 atom is happy to stay in perpetuity. Why isn't your assertion about the smaller particles true about the smallest particle?
With a molecule, the only way to coalesce is to bump into another, if pure water and at lest 300%
saturation, or attach to an aerosol, But the temperature of the molecule needs to be low enough to condense and not re evaporate. if there is a droplet and its cold enough to freeze, it lowers its rate of evaporation and the non frozen droplets are evaporating more, than condensing on the frozen one, will grow from them.. Capish me amigo ?
fosborn_ wrote:The problem with Mcginns coolaid it blinds you to reasonable science.
Aardwolf wrote:Yet ironically your favourite theory has no genuine empirical evidence to back it up. You’re happy with the statement “we don’t have the equipment to measure small water droplets therefore they must not exist so we will theorise them out of existence”. How very scientific of you.
o dam... But still strong evidence, to be discussed, I hope..
fosborn_ wrote:I think this is another paper using simular techniques as a previous refference, getting simular results.
Arctic fog droplets were sampled on narrow glass plates precoated with chloride-sensitive gelatin film at Point Barrow... bla bla ..
Aardwolf wrote:Another irrelevant paper but let me ask you some questions I hope you feel you can answer;
1) Can this experiment detect droplets in the range 0.001µm to 3.3µm?
2) Do you think droplets in the range 0.001µm 3.3µm are possible?
3) Is it your belief that if an experiment does not have the sensitivity to detect something, that something does not exist?
No,,, Yes... No.. Butttt if the samples were crowding in the lower range it would imply greater accuracy is needed. But being all samples were spread out within limits, its profitable information.
fosborn_ wrote:So how do all the references relate. To the objective observer, its measurements about the environment. They might like to know what are reasonable expectations and what are not. It was one of my priority interest in the context of the discussion.
Aardwolf wrote:Unfortunately none of the experiments in these papers are sensitive enough to disprove the OP (nor support the prevailing theory), which makes them irrelevant to the discussion.
covered in the above, I think..
fosborn_ wrote:To coolaid drinkers, for sure its nonsense..
Aardwolf wrote:So, I’m the one drinking coolaid because I am open to the possibility that water can exist as gas or extremely small droplets because neither can be disproven, and you are the objective observer because all the papers you have provided (and won’t discuss their limits) are right because they say so and you agree with them (but won’t discuss their limits). I see.
"o dam" to be corrected...