TOPIC:

Witsend:
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.

Lyner:
@witsend
I guess you would say the same about anyone who had their feet on the ground.
I have built your circuit many times. It's a relay driver. They work conventionally.

I should listen to your friends. If they wonder why you posted your idea on a forum then perhaps so should you.

I have built your circuit many times. It's a relay driver. They work conventionally.Sophiecentaur

Yet another example of a total misconception of the experiment and its intention. It is NOT a relay driver.

And I joined this forum because its the best fun I've had since Christmas. There are not that many people who give up their time to 'talk physics'. I spend a fortune on phone calls to various friends from all over the world just to indulge this passion. My own circle of family and friends don't have a clue what I'm on about and quite frankly it's lonely. This fills that gap. I just wish I could get past the personality and get back to physics. If you were less destructive you'd be ideal. But you're on a mission. I think you're trying to protect the purity of physics from fraudulent misrepresentation's. You haven't the ability to tell fraud from a left foot. And I'm no fraud.

@Stefan
You make your point very clear Stefan, transparent actually and not a point of view I am unfamiliar with, coming from predominantly people who prefer the literature to remain un-tested.
Labelling me as a creationist says you have not bothered to read what I have written, else you would see that I have no religious interests and do not dwell in a belief system. You do yourself a disservice and add nothing to this discussion with your sneers.

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?

Ben V:
I disagree entirely. Sophiecentaur would, no doubt, be thrilled to see established science proven wrong and updated - but only provided it is on solid enough evidence and theory. If he's pushing you at all, it's to make your science better, not to destroy it.

Lyner:
You shot yourself in the foot there, I'm afraid.
If you "had read" what was written, you would have seen that stefan said that you were "like a creationist" and not"a creationist".
I'm afraid that you see what you want to see and make what you want to out of what you observe and what you read. A bit more discipline might help to improve your grasp of Science and allow you to make valid conclusions.

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!

Sophie, I really appreciate your guidance and for showing me how this needs to be presented.

I have an offer of much needed help with presenting a paper for publication from a retired doctor and engineer.

Ben you are Bang to right on Sophie's intentions. Ok we have had a few disagreements and occasionally a few terse comments, but generally most helpful and shows my failings of oversimplifying while trying to present my observations.

@Witsend, you will find that the responses you receive will be more favourable if you refrain from attacking the person rather than the subject at hand. Yes it can be frustrating to try to explain a new direction in a way that it has clarity for all concerned, but at least we can learn how what we write is interpreted by others and this makes for a stronger argument in the end.

Andrew

Question for B.C. et al.

If a tree is suspended vertically in a bath of picric acid has it's roots severed as was the case with Strasburger's experiment showing circulation continued for weeks following the event, despite the tree being completely killed by the influx of acid. What would this acid do to the semi-permiable membranes within the tree? Worth remembering that the leaves were completely killed yet obvious transpiration carried on inside the tree unaffected by this destruction of all living processes.

Andrew

Lyner:
AKF
As usual, you gather a lot of evidence and most of it is sound. You may have revealed a contentious issue - which is interesting. (The reactions you have been getting from other members show that they agree with what I am saying.)
The problem is that you keep trying to impose your own explanation on the phenomenon. If your model doesn't apply elsewhere in Science, then you can't insist that it is valid in this particular case. Science doesn't work in compartments - there must be an explanation which satisfies all conditions - not just in Biological situations - and your model really does not fit the majority of evidence.

Have you never considered that your fundamental view of basic Physics could be flawed? Is it not just possible that conventional Science - which you resent so much - could have got things right about Physics? You seem to want to argue with basic Mechanics in addition to biological phenomena which may be harder to measure and model. Your explanations contain far too much much metaphor and simile and not enough numerical evidence to back them up. Just because you can't imagine why, when you're wrong, proves nothing.

That paper you referred me to says nothing about your particular theory. Did you ever wonder why?

Test the experiments for yourself before jumping to conclusions about how this fits with other systems.

I gave the ocean current "Atlantic Conveyor system as one example with density flow. Another with a domestic hot water pumpless system, another with air density changes relating to hot desert coastlines causing a thermal barrier which prevents the denser moisture laden air from crossing onto the land.

Another with density changes in the blood relating to how dialysis works and indeed how posture alters density in urine.

Far from not fitting it does indeed fit.

Your cuppa in the morning relies on leaves storing salts and sugars. Fruits rely on sugars migrating from a source to a sink.

finger nails and toe nails rely on density changes in order to grow where they grow as do elephant tusks!

Gravity is the key factor in all of this!

How could we work out a density change mathematically in say a cloud passing by, could we explain accurately by how much it's density is affected by heat from the ground, energy from the sun and a cold breeze passing through it? Or would it be more productive to observe the cloud rising or falling?

Lyner;
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.

Of course it is nothing new. The cloud rises into the atmosphere because of the energy provided by the sun. No one has to lift the clouds into the air but the fact remains many tons of water are lifted into the atmosphere from the ocean and this triggers a density change in the ocean surface water and this triggers circulation. Not rocket science is it? We don't need to work out the exact amount of density change taking place, the fact that it sinks is sufficient.

Lyner:
No, not correct. The actual forces and energy involved are HIGHLY relevant to cloud and air movement if you want to know whether there will be a storm or a breeze. The actual values of the quantities are relevant throughout the real world and to our lives.
Gravity acts on a fly just as it acts on you but you can't walk on the ceiling like a fly because of the (insignificant to you, it appears) relative differences between electric and gravitational forces involved.

Yes - it is as hard as rocket Science, actually. If you don't consider yourself qualified to hold forth on the viability or otherwise of a rocket engine (will it take off or not, given some masses and power specs?) then you are not qualified to have an opinion about the viability or not of your circulation ideas. How can you KNOW that the forces involved are due to what you say and not to something else unless you have actually worked out both, in detail?
Nothing "is obvious" when you want to prove an hypothesis.

Just 'like' a creationist, you are ignoring some evidence and repeating, ad nauseam, some other (misinterpreted) evidence. Is that Science?

btw, we have now established that you acknowledge that gravity does not supply the energy for these processes so, perhaps, you will stop telling us that it is the key to the whole thing.

btw, did you know, AFK, that the water is not "lifted"into the air. It is displaced upwards by good old Archimedes' principle. Warmer or 'damper' air are both less dense so they are displaced by cooler, dryer air and 'upthrust' upwards. The old bollocks statement about warm air rising and cold air rushing in to take its place is ,,,,well,,, bollocks. You can't suck air. Some new theories may suck, though!
Work is done against gravity in' lifting' the cloud. The clouds don't just go up because of the Sun they are actually Pushed up by the surrounding atmosphere.

When they bury you will they put your qualifications on your head stone? Or have you contributed something significant we can all remember you by? Enlighten us please.