0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We frequently find that alternate Science theories just change direction to suit rather than dealing with inconsistencies. If a molecule interacts chemically or mechanically with its neighbours in a particuar way under one set of circumstances then, unless conditions are radically changed, we normally expect it to behave the same way in another set.Just how the molecules are supposed to know they're in a tree and not in a tube beats me. Unless it's supposed to be the 'flow' that sustains the flow - being perpetual motion.
Your ideas could only be considered if you were to do a complete energy budget, in which you say how much energy is put in, where it comes from and how much is got out.It needs more than just verbal arm waving. The shape and width of your tubes has no effect on the gravitational potential energy involved in lifting the water. You have, clearly not seen the ultimate relevance of my simplified rope model - the rope cannot evaporate - it is the water in the buckets that evaporates. The rope is the intermolecular attraction, if you like.As I commented earlier. You just shift your ground rather than dealing with my specific objections. Is that true Science?
Andrew, your embryo argument has been refuted by several of us already. Please be less like a creationist and stop using it - how stupid do you think we are?http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18961.msg216255#msg216255http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18961.msg216702#msg216702http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18961.msg216712#msg216712More generally, it would be nice if you either become more sensible or stop arguing about physics and medicine altogether.
Andrew, the point here is that Sophiecentaur does to original thought is what rain does to fire and dampness does to squids. I'm beginning to get an obsessive interest in the personality type. But I would strongly recommend that you don't try and reason with him unless you actually quote from a text book. He has a certain stiffness. A want of flexibility. Struggles a little with the abstract thought. And he trawls through the new ideas threads because he's determined to kill any such, at birth.He's also a scientist who makes up his mind about an experimental results without doing the experiment. Rather a contradiction in terms. So don't get discouraged. Then he'd have achieved his object. He's not interested in the idea. He's only determined to put you down.
Labelling me as a creationist says you have not bothered to read what I have written,