Isaac Newton was a human being

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun May 01, 2016 8:49 pm

Isaac Newton was a human being
by James McGinn

In response to:
Understanding air density and its effects
05/17/2005 - Updated 09:46 AM ET
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm

Was Isaac Newton omniscient? Or was he a human being, capable of making a
mistake? I think the latter is the case. But according to the USA Today
article quoted herein you might think it the former.

The article addresses the comparative weight of moist air to dry air. It
purports to identify a common misconception, that moist air is heavier than dry
air. In actuality It turns out they are wrong. As most people generally assume,
moist air actually is heavier than dry air. So the misconception, actually, is this
notion that moist air is lighter than dry air, a notion that is foisted upon us by
academia.

According to this article, the originator of this falsehood is none other than Isaac
Newton. Apparently, in his 1717 in his book Optics Newton made a statement to
this effect. The article then goes on to describe the reasoning, which I present
below. Continuing on, the article describes this erroneous notion as being,
"known." But it actually isn't known and never has been. For something to be
known it has to be tested, measured, or observed. Or it has to be calculated
based on assumptions that themselves are tested, measured, or observed. And,
apparently, that is where Newton, and all of academia hence, made an error:

USA Today:
"To see why humid air is less dense than dry air, we need to turn to one
of the laws of nature the Italian physicist Amadeo Avogadro discovered
in the early 1800s. In simple terms, he found that a fixed volume of gas,
say one cubic meter, at the same temperature and pressure, would
always have the same number of molecules no matter what gas is in the
container."

James McGinn:
This is true. There is just one problem. H2O is not a gas at ambient
temperatures/pressures. It is still liquid. It is an evaporate, a vapor
and, therefore, It consists of microdroplets of liquid H2O suspended by
electro-static forces between air molecules. Often these microdroplets
are very small, so small they are invisible--just as invisible as gaseous
H2O (this is what confuses most of us). All in all, there is zero evidence
that moisture in our atmosphere is mono-molecular (gaseous) and there
is a wealth of laboratory evidence that confirms that gaseous H2O can
only exist above its boiling point, which is much higher than is available
in our ambient environment.

USA Today:
"Most beginning chemistry books explain how this works. Imagine a cubic
foot of perfectly dry air. It contains about 78% nitrogen molecules, which
each have a molecular weight of 28 (2 atoms with atomic weight 14) .
Another 21% of the air is oxygen, with each molecule having a molecular
weight of 32 (2 atoms with atomic weight 16). The final one percent is a
mixture of other gases, which we won't worry about. Molecules are free
to move in and out of our cubic foot of air."

James McGinn:
Up to this point everything they are saying here is accurate. Here is where
the problem lies:

USA Today:
"What Avogadro discovered leads us to conclude that if we added water vapor
molecules to our cubic foot of air, some of the nitrogen and oxygen molecules
would leave -- remember, the total number of molecules in our cubic foot of air
stays the same. The water molecules, which replace nitrogen or oxygen, have a
molecular weight of 18. (One oxygen atom with atomic weight of 16, and two
hydrogen atoms each with atomic weight of 1). This is lighter than both nitrogen
and oxygen, which average out at 29. In other words, replacing nitrogen and
oxygen with water vapor decreases the weight of the air in the cubic foot; that
is, it's density decreases."

James McGinn:
The real number that should be used here is not 18. It is 18 x X, X being the
number of H2O molecules in the microdroplets. What is the correct number
for X? Well, the truth is we don't know. It is, in my opinion, most likely never
smaller than 10, thus the correct number to put into this equation wouldn't be
18 it would be 180 or larger. It is possible it might be as small as 3 in some
particularly dry bodies of air, in which case it would be 54, still making moist
air considerably heavier than dry air. But even if it is only 2 the atomic
weight of X, at 36, would still be heavier than that of dry air, at 29.

So, if somebody tells you that the notion that moist air is heavier than dry
air is a myth you can tell them that this myth is actually a myth. You can
also tell them that Isaac Newton was not a deity sent from heaven but a normal
human being, prone to the foibles of failing to confirm his assumptions, just
like the rest of us.

James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes

Here is a link to the most viewed post in the history of usenet:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... NEM9mnDgAJ
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Wed May 11, 2016 12:17 pm

Hello,

I think you misread the article; Newton got it "right" - moist air lighter.

I make a guess that moist air is heavier. The gas laws, Avogadro's law - whatever - may not apply. Water vapor H2O in air is not a gas, but water droplets. Real gas and the gas laws apply only to real gas due to the kinetic theory where the molecules knock each other, etc..The water droplets being a suspension of liquid in gas will not cause any displacement of gases - the same volume of moist air and dry air has the same amount of air. So the moist air has additional matter - H2O! thereby heavier - Newton Is wrong!

Why clouds form? There are many things unknown. Water vapor - liquid droplets moves upward defying gravity for whatever reasons. Gaseous air neither moves upwards nor downwards according to kinetic theory - they just knock around! but due to gravity will not escaped into outer space. Water droplets has an "unknown physics" - they go upwards to form clouds until it's time for them to come back down. It may be the "electric universe" effect that make smaller water droplets following some ethereal lines of forces and they point opposite in direction to gravity - but reserved only for water droplets!

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby flyingcloud » Thu May 12, 2016 3:22 am

When stating X number of water molecules, you must consider displacement of X amount of Nitrogen / Oxygen molecules then do the math.

X amount of water molecules can't still be compared to a single Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule.
flyingcloud
 
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
Location: Honey Brook

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Fri May 13, 2016 6:48 am

flyingcloud wrote:When stating X number of water molecules, you must consider displacement of X amount of Nitrogen / Oxygen molecules then do the math.

X amount of water molecules can't still be compared to a single Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule.

I think you are right.

Avogadro's law :
"a law stating that equal volumes of gases at the same temperature and pressure contain equal numbers of molecules."

We have to take water vapor as a gas - but why? Or just a particle for kinetic theory of gas?

It is a strange law. Different molecules have different properties, mass, sizes, etc...yet same volumes always have same number particles.

Has this law being derived from first principle?

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby webolife » Fri May 13, 2016 8:34 am

Of course Newton was human. I actually disagree with the common application of his first law [inertia]!
However Newton's conclusion about and modern measurement of water vapor density agree.
Air containing water vapor is in fact less dense than dry air. McGinn's protestations that water vapor is microdroplets of liquid water does not change the observed kinetic energy of water vapor. Despite his additional objection that gaseous water is only achievable in conditions higher than the boiling temperature, the latent heat of water enables water to in fact disengage from the liquid state at lower temperatures. So whether or not it is monomolecular is moot. Water is a very unusual substance which has a set of rules unto itself for phase change conditions. As Dr. Pollack [University of Washington] has shown, there is an intermediate electrically polarized gel-state of water formed at hydrophilic boundaries where water's molecular structure actually changes from H2O to H3O2! And everyone knows that water decreases its density at its freezing point.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun May 15, 2016 6:48 pm

webolife wrote:Of course Newton was human. I actually disagree with the common application of his first law [inertia]!
However Newton's conclusion about and modern measurement of water vapor density agree.
Air containing water vapor is in fact less dense than dry air. McGinn's protestations that water vapor is microdroplets of liquid water does not change the observed kinetic energy of water vapor.


You aren't even beginning to make sense here.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun May 15, 2016 6:59 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote:Water droplets has an "unknown physics" - they go upwards to form clouds until it's time for them to come back down. It may be the "electric universe" effect that make smaller water droplets following some ethereal lines of forces and they point opposite in direction to gravity - but reserved only for water droplets!


The solar wind charges the atmosphere with a net negative charge, making it a slight plasma. Water microdroplets with an external net positive charge are pulled up by the slight negative charge of the atmosphere. The result is moist air. Moist air is also a slight plasma. it is a slightly stronger (and obviously heavier) plasma due to the inclusion of surface tension of the microdroplets.

What is stated above is instrumental in understanding the prerequisites of storms:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searc ... a$20slight
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby webolife » Sun May 15, 2016 8:22 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
webolife wrote:Of course Newton was human. I actually disagree with the common application of his first law [inertia]!
However Newton's conclusion about and modern measurement of water vapor density agree.
Air containing water vapor is in fact less dense than dry air. McGinn's protestations that water vapor is microdroplets of liquid water does not change the observed kinetic energy of water vapor.


You aren't even beginning to make sense here.


What I'm saying is that water vapor behaves as a gas, whether or not we accept McGinn's premise that unboiled water vapor is still in the liquid state. As such it exhibits a density which is lower than the average density of dry air.
While counterintuitive for some, it is not really controversial that higher humidity correlates to less dense air under the same conditions of temperature and pressure.

Did you have a question about this?

Or perhaps were you commenting about my challenge to Newton's first law, which I'll restate here with a little more detail: Newton's premise for inertia was that objects move at a constant velocity unless acted on by an unbalanced force. Inferred by this is that inertial conditions involve straight line momentum. However, it can be argued without contest that nowhere in the universe is a motion rectilinear. In fact all objects are moving in curved paths under the influence of gravitation, whether it be electrigravitic or some other related field, and Newton's idealized inertial condition does not exist.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun May 15, 2016 9:12 pm

webolife wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
webolife wrote:Of course Newton was human. I actually disagree with the common application of his first law [inertia]!
However Newton's conclusion about and modern measurement of water vapor density agree.
Air containing water vapor is in fact less dense than dry air. McGinn's protestations that water vapor is microdroplets of liquid water does not change the observed kinetic energy of water vapor.


You aren't even beginning to make sense here.


What I'm saying is that water vapor behaves as a gas, whether or not we accept McGinn's premise that unboiled water vapor is still in the liquid state. As such it exhibits a density which is lower than the average density of dry air.

While counterintuitive for some, it is not really controversial that higher humidity correlates to less dense air under the same conditions of temperature and pressure.

Did you have a question about this?


This is a perfectly inane response to my thinking. You don't have a scientific argument or point. Your assertions are faith based. I suggest that you admit you don't have a scientific argument and move on. Don't be in ingrate and continue to belabor a point for nothing but the sake of your own fragile sense of certainty. Be an adult. Address the issue directly or kindly go away.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby webolife » Wed May 18, 2016 7:35 am

Fragile? Go away? Does my challenge of your opening assertion offend you? How could I be more direct? Mind if I ask a few questions of your unusual claim? I expect folks here to question my unusual claims... it helps me to clarify my models. If water vapor exists as microdroplets, by what authority do you declare that these water particles do not obey Avogadro's laws? Are you certain that polymolecular microdroplets of water are liquid? Are you certain that they are plasma? Is modern atmospheric science pretty much baseless in your view? Do you have a better explanation for cloud formation and precipitation that will improve weather forecasting?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat May 28, 2016 2:56 pm

webolife wrote:Fragile? Go away? Does my challenge of your opening assertion offend you? How could I be more direct? Mind if I ask a few questions of your unusual claim? I expect folks here to question my unusual claims... it helps me to clarify my models. If water vapor exists as microdroplets, by what authority do you declare that these water particles do not obey Avogadro's laws? Are you certain that polymolecular microdroplets of water are liquid? Are you certain that they are plasma? Is modern atmospheric science pretty much baseless in your view? Do you have a better explanation for cloud formation and precipitation that will improve weather forecasting?


I think you should stop putting words in other people's mouths and go find a hobby in which representing other people's thoughts accurately isn't important.

Richard Saykally, UC Berkely Professor, Unable to Dispute Hydrogen Bonding as Mechanism That Neuttralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... 0bizqKEwAJ
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby webolife » Sun May 29, 2016 8:31 pm

I'm sorry. Could you explain where I misrepresented your thoughts? It seems to me that the crux of your objection to the inverse proportionality of density/humidity is that water vapor is actually liquid droplets that don't conform to Avogadro's principle, so their presence in a given volume of air somehow increases the density of that volume. If this is not a correct summary, what did I miss?

You apparently took the same aggressive tactic against Rich S, as you referenced. The interesting thing to me is that you present your own model, based on some questionable assumptions about the nature of water droplets in a vapor, then defend it with the same lack of consideration that you are criticizing in others. Is this a blind spot for you? Is it possible for you to have a civil dialogue about your ideas with others who are questioning you?

I'm asking several clarifying and or challenge questions; would you like to try to answer some of those so I can understand your thoughts better?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Tue May 31, 2016 6:25 am

webolife wrote:I'm sorry. Could you explain where I misrepresented your thoughts? It seems to me that the crux of your objection to the inverse proportionality of density/humidity is that water vapor is actually liquid droplets that don't conform to Avogadro's principle, so their presence in a given volume of air somehow increases the density of that volume. If this is not a correct summary, what did I miss?


If you quote somebody verbatim and in context you don't have to worry about misrepresenting their thoughts.

webolife wrote:You apparently took the same aggressive tactic against Rich S, as you referenced. The interesting thing to me is that you present your own model, based on some questionable assumptions about the nature of water droplets in a vapor, then defend it with the same lack of consideration that you are criticizing in others. Is this a blind spot for you? Is it possible for you to have a civil dialogue about your ideas with others who are questioning you?

I'm asking several clarifying and or challenge questions; would you like to try to answer some of those so I can understand your thoughts better?


Uh, Richard Saykally presented no dispute with the substance of my thinking. But he wasn't honorable about this and instead he lied to conceal his inability to dispute it. Unfortunately these kinds of tactics are extremely common in academia. Likewise, you too are being dishonest with your insinuation that I have taken a defensive stance when the fact is that Saykally completely failed to offer any kind of substantive dispute.

If you think my assumptions are mistaken then one can only wonder why you don't make an argument to that effect.

Alan Soper takes a stab at disputing Hydrogen Bonding as The Mechanism That Neutralizes H2O Polarity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... RJ1TdlDAAJ
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:09 pm

webolife wrote:The interesting thing to me is that you present your own model, based on some questionable assumptions about the nature of water droplets in a vapor


It would appear that any doubts you may have had about the scientific validity of these assumptions has evaporated.

Or are you going to continue with the charade that you understand what you obviously do not understand?
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Isaac Newton was a human being

Unread postby webolife » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:19 am

I'm not continuing this battle with you any longer.
I presented some challenges to your water vapor assumptions, asked questions, suggested alternative explanations, and all you have done is attack me. Why? Well, never mind, you clearly have an agenda you do not wish be contradicted. I'm done here.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Next

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest