sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by sokpupet on Apr 10, 2024 17:54:18 GMT
Just goes to show that the extreme right does not own science denial. You'll see left-wing anti-vaxxers, and lefties who believe in HAARP and directed energy weapons. There are also those that believe 9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't melt steel!) Actually, the right is far more scientifically honest than the left by a country mile. On abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism, macro evolution, global warming and COVID, we consistently get the science right while the left ignores it in favor of their "settled" narrative. 🙄
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 10, 2024 19:10:07 GMT
Ah, Freon's pretending to be knowledgeable again.....do we humor him or let him fail alone?
There's high energy and low energy states of matter, with solids, liquids, gases and plasma as the normal low energy phases and degenerate or quark matter on the high end.
Neither liquid nor gas are current states of moon's composition today, although there is a fluid outer core and not certain whether the center of the moon is solid or molten. But calling the outer layers that we interact with either liquid or gas is a bit delusional unless you want to explain yourself.
By all means, genius, enlighten us.
Nope. I have no time to bring you up to speed on how matter works, lol. But I will go even farther and say that technically, there is really only ONE state of matter; Liquids (unless absolute zero Kelvin can be achieved). What you see as a solid, is not solid at all. What you call a gas, is actually a highly dilute liquid. But you are taught in high school a simplified version, and a casual internet search will not argue it. It's good enough for your needs. But it's technically incorrect. Freon Actually, you lack a basic understanding of the states of matter, which is a PHYSICAL description based on intermolecular forces. Solids, liquids and gases are not really liquids, but are particles where the distance and relative movement of each particle (molecule) determine the state of matter.
Properties of Gases -
A collection of widely separated molecules The kinetic energy of the molecules is greater than any attractive forces between the molecules The lack of any significant attractive force between molecules allows a gas to expand to fill its container If attractive forces become large enough, then the gases exhibit non-ideal behavior
Properties of Liquids-
The intermolecular attractive forces are strong enough to hold molecules close together Liquids are more dense and less compressible than gasses Liquids have a definite volume, independent of the size and shape of their container The attractive forces are not strong enough, however, to keep neighboring molecules in a fixed position and molecules are free to move past or slide over one another Thus, liquids can be poured and assume the shape of their containers.
Properties of Solids -
The intermolecular forces between neighboring molecules are strong enough to keep them locked in position Solids (like liquids) are not very compressible due to the lack of space between molecules If the molecules in a solid adopt a highly ordered packing arrangement, the structures are said to be crystalline
Due to the strong intermolecular forces between neighboring molecules, solids are rigid.
Cooling a gas may change the state to a liquid Cooling a liquid may change the state to a solid Increasing the pressure on a gas may change the state to a liquid Increasing the pressure on a liquid may change the state to a solid
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 10, 2024 19:11:50 GMT
Actually, the right is far more scientifically honest than the left by a country mile. On abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism, macro evolution, global warming and COVID, we consistently get the science right while the left ignores it in favor of their "settled" narrative. 🙄 You're clueless enough to be a liberal, that's certain. Any time you want to pick one of those subjects, I can show you just how wrong you are.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 10, 2024 19:29:59 GMT
Nope. I have no time to bring you up to speed on how matter works, lol. But I will go even farther and say that technically, there is really only ONE state of matter; Liquids (unless absolute zero Kelvin can be achieved). What you see as a solid, is not solid at all. What you call a gas, is actually a highly dilute liquid. But you are taught in high school a simplified version, and a casual internet search will not argue it. It's good enough for your needs. But it's technically incorrect. Freon Actually, you lack a basic understanding of the states of matter, which is a PHYSICAL description based on intermolecular forces. Solids, liquids and gases are not really liquids, but are particles where the distance and relative movement of each particle (molecule) determine the state of matter.
Properties of Gases -
A collection of widely separated molecules The kinetic energy of the molecules is greater than any attractive forces between the molecules The lack of any significant attractive force between molecules allows a gas to expand to fill its container If attractive forces become large enough, then the gases exhibit non-ideal behavior
Properties of Liquids-
The intermolecular attractive forces are strong enough to hold molecules close together Liquids are more dense and less compressible than gasses Liquids have a definite volume, independent of the size and shape of their container The attractive forces are not strong enough, however, to keep neighboring molecules in a fixed position and molecules are free to move past or slide over one another Thus, liquids can be poured and assume the shape of their containers.
Properties of Solids -
The intermolecular forces between neighboring molecules are strong enough to keep them locked in position Solids (like liquids) are not very compressible due to the lack of space between molecules If the molecules in a solid adopt a highly ordered packing arrangement, the structures are said to be crystalline
Due to the strong intermolecular forces between neighboring molecules, solids are rigid.
Cooling a gas may change the state to a liquid Cooling a liquid may change the state to a solid Increasing the pressure on a gas may change the state to a liquid Increasing the pressure on a liquid may change the state to a solid
Yup, this is what laypeople are taught. It's wrong, but explaining how matter actually works takes greater training than you have. So what you will find in anything but a high level science course, is the explanation you just posted. Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Simple. Wrong, but simple. So much that you think you understand are just oversimplifications. I was visiting a family member recently, who is a Nurse Practitioner. Way more educated than a nurse, but not quite an MD. At least five years of schooling after regular college, but only in PRACTICAL science, meaning not in science itself, but in the implementation of scientific principles. So we're talking about lipids, and she tells me that Cholesterol is a lipid, which it is not, however if you look it up, just like you did for the states of matter, 99% of sites will tell you she is correct. So what's going on here? On a practical level, a Lipid Panel, which is what a medical professional would look at to gauge healthy lipid levels, Cholesterol is reported. So to them, Cholesterol IS a lipid. But to a scientist, who knows that all lipids share a similar structure, and Cholesterol does not have that structure, it is NOT one. What you, and she, do not get, is that the distance in education between her and you, which is large, is the same distance between her and a scientist. From my perspective, she is uneducated in science. And laypeople are simply clueless. Freon
|
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by sokpupet on Apr 10, 2024 19:56:19 GMT
You're clueless enough to be a liberal, that's certain. Any time you want to pick one of those subjects, I can show you just how wrong you are. I’ve read you ad nauseam and know your positions. I support your beliefs right up to your and the RW forcing it on everyone.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 10, 2024 19:57:36 GMT
Actually, you lack a basic understanding of the states of matter, which is a PHYSICAL description based on intermolecular forces. Solids, liquids and gases are not really liquids, but are particles where the distance and relative movement of each particle (molecule) determine the state of matter.
Properties of Gases -
A collection of widely separated molecules The kinetic energy of the molecules is greater than any attractive forces between the molecules The lack of any significant attractive force between molecules allows a gas to expand to fill its container If attractive forces become large enough, then the gases exhibit non-ideal behavior
Properties of Liquids-
The intermolecular attractive forces are strong enough to hold molecules close together Liquids are more dense and less compressible than gasses Liquids have a definite volume, independent of the size and shape of their container The attractive forces are not strong enough, however, to keep neighboring molecules in a fixed position and molecules are free to move past or slide over one another Thus, liquids can be poured and assume the shape of their containers.
Properties of Solids -
The intermolecular forces between neighboring molecules are strong enough to keep them locked in position Solids (like liquids) are not very compressible due to the lack of space between molecules If the molecules in a solid adopt a highly ordered packing arrangement, the structures are said to be crystalline
Due to the strong intermolecular forces between neighboring molecules, solids are rigid.
Cooling a gas may change the state to a liquid Cooling a liquid may change the state to a solid Increasing the pressure on a gas may change the state to a liquid Increasing the pressure on a liquid may change the state to a solid
Yup, this is what laypeople are taught. It's wrong, but explaining how matter actually works takes greater training than you have. So what you will find in anything but a high level science course, is the explanation you just posted. Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Simple. Wrong, but simple. So much that you think you understand are just oversimplifications. I was visiting a family member recently, who is a Nurse Practitioner. Way more educated than a nurse, but not quite an MD. At least five years of schooling after regular college, but only in PRACTICAL science, meaning not in science itself, but in the implementation of scientific principles. So we're talking about lipids, and she tells me that Cholesterol is a lipid, which it is not, however if you look it up, just like you did for the states of matter, 99% of sites will tell you she is correct. So what's going on here? On a practical level, a Lipid Panel, which is what a medical professional would look at to gauge healthy lipid levels, Cholesterol is reported. So to them, Cholesterol IS a lipid. But to a scientist, who knows that all lipids share a similar structure, and Cholesterol does not have that structure, it is NOT one. What you, and she, do not get, is that the distance in education between her and you, which is large, is the same distance between her and a scientist. From my perspective, she is uneducated in science. And laypeople are simply clueless. Freon Sorry, Freon, but no one is buying your pretended superiority. The states of matter are correct. It's funny how you make these pompous proclamations of how "educated" you are, yet you can't support that arrogance by simply referencing a scientific source for your little theory that everything is a liquid no matter what we call it.
But I must give you credit. You don't dare post sources because you might find out that, not only do we understand what you claim that we're too uneducated to know, we understand it all better than you do.
The floor is yours....source your idea that everything is liquid.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 6,219
|
Post by Paleocon on Apr 10, 2024 20:04:30 GMT
You're clueless enough to be a liberal, that's certain. Any time you want to pick one of those subjects, I can show you just how wrong you are. I’ve read you ad nauseam and know your positions. I support your beliefs right up to your and the RW forcing it on everyone. We were talking about whether the left or the right are the real adherents to scientific truth.
My "position" is the truth and I enjoy the fact that it irritates leftists when I share it.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 10, 2024 20:25:52 GMT
Yup, this is what laypeople are taught. It's wrong, but explaining how matter actually works takes greater training than you have. So what you will find in anything but a high level science course, is the explanation you just posted. Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Simple. Wrong, but simple. So much that you think you understand are just oversimplifications. I was visiting a family member recently, who is a Nurse Practitioner. Way more educated than a nurse, but not quite an MD. At least five years of schooling after regular college, but only in PRACTICAL science, meaning not in science itself, but in the implementation of scientific principles. So we're talking about lipids, and she tells me that Cholesterol is a lipid, which it is not, however if you look it up, just like you did for the states of matter, 99% of sites will tell you she is correct. So what's going on here? On a practical level, a Lipid Panel, which is what a medical professional would look at to gauge healthy lipid levels, Cholesterol is reported. So to them, Cholesterol IS a lipid. But to a scientist, who knows that all lipids share a similar structure, and Cholesterol does not have that structure, it is NOT one. What you, and she, do not get, is that the distance in education between her and you, which is large, is the same distance between her and a scientist. From my perspective, she is uneducated in science. And laypeople are simply clueless. Freon Sorry, Freon, but no one is buying your pretended superiority. The states of matter are correct. It's funny how you make these pompous proclamations of how "educated" you are, yet you can't support that arrogance by simply referencing a scientific source for your little theory that everything is a liquid no matter what we call it.
But I must give you credit. You don't dare post sources because you might find out that, not only do we understand what you claim that we're too uneducated to know, we understand it all better than you do.
The floor is yours....source your idea that everything is liquid.
Why is it so hard to believe that I know more about science than you? Do you really believe that someone trained in science is just slightly more knowledgeable than someone with access to the Internet? And I am not superior to you. More knowledgeable? Yes. But if you studied what I did, you would have it too. It's not secret, or difficult to obtain. Anyone can have it. But you will not find it for free on the Internet. Freon
|
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by sokpupet on Apr 10, 2024 20:38:12 GMT
She misspoke referring to the sun when explaining the eclipse with the sun (gaseous) and the moon. Good grief! Have none of you ever gotten mixed up?
|
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 11,776
|
Post by RWB on Apr 10, 2024 20:43:14 GMT
Just goes to show that the extreme right does not own science denial. You'll see left-wing anti-vaxxers, and lefties who believe in HAARP and directed energy weapons. There are also those that believe 9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't melt steel!) Ha ha ha ha ha, no jet fuel cannot melt steel. But buildings as tall as the ones hit by those planes are very heavy. They ae engineered at best balance and distribution of weight. And made with the strongest material as possible. And that strongest material did not melt. But with the shift in weight from the building damage and the fires not melting the steel but getting it red hot so it would bend very easily, then ton after ton falling on the building below destroy them. It looks like you are another perfect left wing smart thinker as the rest of them here. I don’t know or have heard of anyone thinking it was an inside job. But then again, there are the democrat voters. No, Trump had nothing to do with it. actually I don't believe those planes brought down the twin towers. that was a planned demolition the way they came straight down. AND why did building #5 2 blocks away and never hit by anything fall down in the exact same way?my guess is the plane that crashed in the field in Pennsylvania was supposed to hit building 5 and the explosives had to be detenated to get rid of the evidence. AGAIN just my personal opinion
|
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 11,776
|
Post by RWB on Apr 10, 2024 21:08:53 GMT
Sorry, Freon, but no one is buying your pretended superiority. The states of matter are correct. It's funny how you make these pompous proclamations of how "educated" you are, yet you can't support that arrogance by simply referencing a scientific source for your little theory that everything is a liquid no matter what we call it.
But I must give you credit. You don't dare post sources because you might find out that, not only do we understand what you claim that we're too uneducated to know, we understand it all better than you do.
The floor is yours....source your idea that everything is liquid.
Why is it so hard to believe that I know more about science than you? Do you really believe that someone trained in science is just slightly more knowledgeable than someone with access to the Internet? And I am not superior to you. More knowledgeable? Yes. But if you studied what I did, you would have it too. It's not secret, or difficult to obtain. Anyone can have it. But you will not find it for free on the Internet. Freon ROFLMAO you're always good for a laugh
|
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by sokpupet on Apr 10, 2024 21:10:47 GMT
I’ve read you ad nauseam and know your positions. I support your beliefs right up to your and the RW forcing it on everyone. We were talking about whether the left or the right are the real adherents to scientific truth.
My "position" is the truth and I enjoy the fact that it irritates leftists when I share it.
You are experiencing a superiority complex. I am open to learning from anyone here. There is a huge problem fusing church and state.
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Apr 10, 2024 21:23:26 GMT
Gender is determined by biology. Homosexuality IS a choice and evolution IS real but it (ONLY) happens within rather than between species (as micro-evolution).
Just because you're bisexual does not mean the rest of us are. How is that so hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Apr 10, 2024 21:29:44 GMT
Just goes to show that the extreme right does not own science denial. You'll see left-wing anti-vaxxers, and lefties who believe in HAARP and directed energy weapons. There are also those that believe 9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't melt steel!) Actually, the right is far more scientifically honest than the left by a country mile. On abortion, homosexuality and transgenderism, macro evolution, global warming and COVID, we consistently get the science right while the left ignores it in favor of their "settled" narrative. Id give the left credit for science, and right credit for history. The right uses to much God in science. The left use to much propaganda with missing parts in history.
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Apr 10, 2024 21:32:14 GMT
Yup, this is what laypeople are taught. It's wrong, but explaining how matter actually works takes greater training than you have. So what you will find in anything but a high level science course, is the explanation you just posted. Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Simple. Wrong, but simple. So much that you think you understand are just oversimplifications. I was visiting a family member recently, who is a Nurse Practitioner. Way more educated than a nurse, but not quite an MD. At least five years of schooling after regular college, but only in PRACTICAL science, meaning not in science itself, but in the implementation of scientific principles. So we're talking about lipids, and she tells me that Cholesterol is a lipid, which it is not, however if you look it up, just like you did for the states of matter, 99% of sites will tell you she is correct. So what's going on here? On a practical level, a Lipid Panel, which is what a medical professional would look at to gauge healthy lipid levels, Cholesterol is reported. So to them, Cholesterol IS a lipid. But to a scientist, who knows that all lipids share a similar structure, and Cholesterol does not have that structure, it is NOT one. What you, and she, do not get, is that the distance in education between her and you, which is large, is the same distance between her and a scientist. From my perspective, she is uneducated in science. And laypeople are simply clueless. Freon Sorry, Freon, but no one is buying your pretended superiority. The states of matter are correct. It's funny how you make these pompous proclamations of how "educated" you are, yet you can't support that arrogance by simply referencing a scientific source for your little theory that everything is a liquid no matter what we call it.
But I must give you credit. You don't dare post sources because you might find out that, not only do we understand what you claim that we're too uneducated to know, we understand it all better than you do.
The floor is yours....source your idea that everything is liquid.
Sorry you are wrong Paleocon.... but when are you not. I also do not agree with Freon, so there you go.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Stop telling me I'm awesome. I already know.
Posts: 19,595
|
Post by freonbale on Apr 10, 2024 21:42:15 GMT
Why is it so hard to believe that I know more about science than you? Do you really believe that someone trained in science is just slightly more knowledgeable than someone with access to the Internet? And I am not superior to you. More knowledgeable? Yes. But if you studied what I did, you would have it too. It's not secret, or difficult to obtain. Anyone can have it. But you will not find it for free on the Internet. Freon ROFLMAO you're always good for a laugh I can only show the door to you. If you choose to remain enslaved within, that's a choice. Freon
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Apr 10, 2024 21:49:55 GMT
She misspoke referring to the sun when explaining the eclipse with the sun (gaseous) and the moon. Good grief! Have none of you ever gotten mixed up?
The cons here definitely think they're Marry Poppins. They've never made a mistake.
|
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 5,147
Member is Online
|
Post by sokpupet on Apr 10, 2024 22:07:30 GMT
She misspoke referring to the sun when explaining the eclipse with the sun (gaseous) and the moon. Good grief! Have none of you ever gotten mixed up?
The cons here definitely think they're Marry Poppins. They've never made a mistake.
They’ve been conditioned through the RW person/media’s projection.
|
|
|
Post by archie on Apr 10, 2024 22:30:40 GMT
Just goes to show that the extreme right does not own science denial. You'll see left-wing anti-vaxxers, and lefties who believe in HAARP and directed energy weapons. There are also those that believe 9/11 was an inside job (jet fuel can't melt steel!) I did some research to see if maybe you knew something I didn’t know about. But the buildings went down like I believed they did. Fire. In 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the results of its investigation into the collapse. It found nothing substandard in the towers' design, noting that the severity of the attacks was beyond anything experienced by buildings in the past. The NIST determined the fires to be the main cause of the collapses, finding that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns, causing them to bow and then buckle. Once the upper section of the building began to move downward, a total progressive collapse was unavoidable. I know a bit about fire and metal. I learned my trade at Waterbury Farrel Foundry and machine Co. I have bent some red hot metal myself. I have seen liquid metal pouring into molds. I believe the red hot metal bending under the weight of those buildings destroyed them. No evidence of explosives were found.
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Apr 10, 2024 22:37:13 GMT
Gender is determined by biology! Gender is determined by biology. I thought it was sex that was determined by biology and gender the conventional or cultural thing. I don't know. Maybe I have that backwards.
|
|