0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You are like a creationist in that you keep using dead arguments and don't listen to reason.Do you think your nonsense is a valuable contribution?
Quote from: _Stefan_ on 26/06/2009 09:02:04You are like a creationist in that you keep using dead arguments and don't listen to reason.Do you think your nonsense is a valuable contribution?Much better argument than the arguments relied upon in the literature!Repeat: Osmosis does not account for the fluid transport volumes observed in tall trees. Root pressure is a joke. Cohesion tension theory sucks and capillary action cannot account for the size of tubular dead cells found in the xylem of tall trees. And let's not forget Strasburger's experiments that rulled out any living processes actively involved in bulk flow.You are defending erroneous literature!
Put aside your other arguments (which pale in comparison to sophiecentaur's and others' criticisms) for a moment.No one demolished the argument about gravity influencing embryo development Stefan, how could they? NASA and the former USSR space programmes have done ample research and shown that gravity plays a crucial part in embryo development. Do some homework before jumping to conclusions.But please start a new thread rather than distracting this one.QuoteYou used the embryo argument in a different thread and we demolished it. Yet you repeated it to us in this thread. Do you think we are idiots? Try having some intellectual integrity, Andrew.Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 26/06/2009 13:11:45Quote from: _Stefan_ on 26/06/2009 09:02:04You are like a creationist in that you keep using dead arguments and don't listen to reason.Do you think your nonsense is a valuable contribution?Much better argument than the arguments relied upon in the literature!Repeat: Osmosis does not account for the fluid transport volumes observed in tall trees. Root pressure is a joke. Cohesion tension theory sucks and capillary action cannot account for the size of tubular dead cells found in the xylem of tall trees. And let's not forget Strasburger's experiments that rulled out any living processes actively involved in bulk flow.You are defending erroneous literature!
You used the embryo argument in a different thread and we demolished it. Yet you repeated it to us in this thread. Do you think we are idiots? Try having some intellectual integrity, Andrew.
No one demolished the argument about gravity influencing embryo development Stefan, how could they? NASA and the former USSR space programmes have done ample research and shown that gravity plays a crucial part in embryo development. Do some homework before jumping to conclusions.But please start a new thread rather than distracting this one.Quote from: _Stefan_ on 26/06/2009 13:50:47Put aside your other arguments (which pale in comparison to sophiecentaur's and others' criticisms) for a moment.You used the embryo argument in a different thread and we demolished it. Yet you repeated it to us in this thread. Do you think we are idiots? Try having some intellectual integrity, Andrew.Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 26/06/2009 13:11:45Quote from: _Stefan_ on 26/06/2009 09:02:04You are like a creationist in that you keep using dead arguments and don't listen to reason.Do you think your nonsense is a valuable contribution?Much better argument than the arguments relied upon in the literature!Repeat: Osmosis does not account for the fluid transport volumes observed in tall trees. Root pressure is a joke. Cohesion tension theory sucks and capillary action cannot account for the size of tubular dead cells found in the xylem of tall trees. And let's not forget Strasburger's experiments that rulled out any living processes actively involved in bulk flow.You are defending erroneous literature!
Put aside your other arguments (which pale in comparison to sophiecentaur's and others' criticisms) for a moment.You used the embryo argument in a different thread and we demolished it. Yet you repeated it to us in this thread. Do you think we are idiots? Try having some intellectual integrity, Andrew.Quote from: Andrew K Fletcher on 26/06/2009 13:11:45Quote from: _Stefan_ on 26/06/2009 09:02:04You are like a creationist in that you keep using dead arguments and don't listen to reason.Do you think your nonsense is a valuable contribution?Much better argument than the arguments relied upon in the literature!Repeat: Osmosis does not account for the fluid transport volumes observed in tall trees. Root pressure is a joke. Cohesion tension theory sucks and capillary action cannot account for the size of tubular dead cells found in the xylem of tall trees. And let's not forget Strasburger's experiments that rulled out any living processes actively involved in bulk flow.You are defending erroneous literature!
Andrew K Fletcher,I assure you that if you EVER email me again with such fatuous comments I shall copy that email and paste it on this thread.
There is nothing at all new about the mechanism of convection, due to thermal density changes or circulation due to the addition of solutes. The forces and the energy involved all account for the values observed. You seem to be claiming that you have something new here. Why? No one has denied that it happens - the objection is that you seem to have commandeered it as as 'source' of motive energy.Of course gravity is involved. When you drop a stone on your foot, 'gravity is involved'. Left to itself, however, gravity won't do it again. Someone has to lift the stone again - providing gravitational potential energy - before it can happen again. 'Gravity' is not the source of the energy, any more than a watch spring is the source of energy for a watch.You have your usual list of observable processes, as if that actually constitutes proof of anything (apart from the fact that they happen).As for calculations about clouds vs standing watching them - it depends what you want out of the exercise. If you want a chance of predicting what will happen with a cloud under a new set of circumstances then you need to get some understanding of the Physics involved. As you are posting on a Science Forum, I should have thought that would be your interest. The analysis of clouds is not difficult - it's done all the time, along with a lot of other thermodynamic calculations.If you had no idea of what was going on in a cloud apart from the fact that it was rising or falling, how would it increase the sum total of human knowledge? You would need to study / measure the parameters of that cloud and then do some ACTUAL SUMS (Andrew!!!!) before you would get anywhere at all.I'm afraid your maths-free approach to your theories is of even less use than alcohol-free Whiskey.
We don't need to work out the exact amount of density change taking place, the fact that it sinks is sufficent.