FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gas is a lie!

   
Author Topic: Gas is a lie!
Rawrain
Member
Member # 12414

 - posted      Profile for Rawrain   Email Rawrain         Edit/Delete Post 
Thinking, aren't gases just liquids, discuss.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post 
You must be more bored than usual.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rawrain
Member
Member # 12414

 - posted      Profile for Rawrain   Email Rawrain         Edit/Delete Post 
I get bored when I am sweeping a parking lot, and I was just thinking how similar gases and liquids are, and concluded in my own right they are the same thing ._.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Gas and liquid are both fluids, but have distinct characteristics.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rawrain
Member
Member # 12414

 - posted      Profile for Rawrain   Email Rawrain         Edit/Delete Post 
Biggest difference I could think of is smaller particle sizes for gases which makes them capable of effusion which liquids cannot do due to having larger particle size.... and of course expanding to fit it's surroundings ._. which liquids seem to do as well but being more dense prevents them from expanding all that much ._.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
You could, you know, just read the Wikipedia articles.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rawrain:
Biggest difference I could think of is smaller particle sizes for gases which makes them capable of effusion which liquids cannot do due to having larger particle size.... and of course expanding to fit it's surroundings ._. which liquids seem to do as well but being more dense prevents them from expanding all that much ._.

Wrong. Most everything can exist in both liquid and gaseous state given the proper temperature and pressure. Particle size is essentially independent of whether something is a liquid or a gas. Water molecules, for example, are smaller than CO2 molecules, but at room temperature water is a liquid and CO2 is a gas. The key factor is intermolecular interaction strength -- not particle size.

The possibility of effusion is dependent on the mean free path of particles and has little or nothing to do with their size.

Liquids do not expand to fill their surroundings. If they did, there would be no such thing as the water glass that's half empty. This is not directly a function of their density. It's a function of intermolecular forces.

The biggest difference between liquid's and gases is compressibility. To a first approximation, liquids are incompressible -- that is the volume of a liquid is nearly independent of the pressure. Gases, on the other hand, are highly compressible. There volume is typically inversely proportional to pressure.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rawrain
Member
Member # 12414

 - posted      Profile for Rawrain   Email Rawrain         Edit/Delete Post 
It's more important for me to try and recall all the things I've known and lost, than just look it up .-. for instance, I WAS a wiz at balancing chemical formulas, think I can do that now... no and it's only been like 2 years /:
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
There are quite rigorous scientific difference between liquids and gases. If you didn't learn those differences in your chemistry class, you either had a terrible teacher or should have failed miserably.

I highly suggest avoid you make claims like this without knowing thing one about the subject unless you enjoy looking like a fool

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Biggest difference I could think of is smaller particle sizes for gases which makes them capable of effusion which liquids cannot do due to having larger particle size . .
Do you have the slightest idea what "effusion" is? It sure doesn't sound like it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Response to OP: NO.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit, your posts made me think of this XKCD shirt:
quote:
Science: We finally figured out that you could separate fact from superstition by a completely radical method: observation. You can try things, measure them, and see how they work!

Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rawrain:
Biggest difference I could think of is smaller particle sizes for gases which makes them capable of effusion which liquids cannot do due to having larger particle size.... and of course expanding to fit it's surroundings ._. which liquids seem to do as well but being more dense prevents them from expanding all that much ._.

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather."
-Bill Hicks

Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Ducks... no different from wood! Discuss!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Most everything can exist in both liquid and gaseous state given the proper temperature and pressure.
My brother, for instance
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Ducks... no different from wood! Discuss!

He's a witch!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
He turned me into a newt!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EarlNMeyer-Flask
Member
Member # 1546

 - posted      Profile for EarlNMeyer-Flask           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I highly suggest avoid you make claims like this without knowing thing one about the subject unless you enjoy looking like a fool
I highly suggest avoid you make claims without grammar or spell check

Rawrain is questioning science and wondering about it. That shouldn't be discouraged since that is a way to learn about science.

Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
Laugh all you want but he might have a point. In fact, leading scientists agree that gases and solids aren't as different as we might think either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZihtih0BnU

[ September 04, 2011, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EarlNMeyer-Flask
Member
Member # 1546

 - posted      Profile for EarlNMeyer-Flask           Edit/Delete Post 
I know in mathematics, gases are sometimes modeled as highly viscous fluids.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
If he were *actually* wondering about it, there's a small horizontal bar in the upper right of his screen which would answer his question and inform his wondering very thoroughly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EarlNMeyer-Flask
Member
Member # 1546

 - posted      Profile for EarlNMeyer-Flask           Edit/Delete Post 
He's questioning the conventional wisdom, and that is wondering about it. Sheesh, there'd be no Einsteins and no theory of relativity if people simply accepted the conventional wisdom about science.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask:
I know in mathematics, gases are sometimes modeled as highly viscous fluids.

I think you are confused. A fluid is "A continuous, amorphous substance whose molecules move freely past one another and that has the tendency to assume the shape of its container." Gases are fluids, that's not debatable -- its what the words mean.

Gases, however, are not highly viscous fluids, quite the opposite. Molasses is an example of a highly viscous fluid. At room temperature, molasses is about 5000 times more viscosity than water and water is roughly 50 times more viscous than air.

It wouldn't surprise me if some mathematician had modeled a gas as a highly viscous fluid, since mathematicians are not noted for using realistic assumptions in their models. Such a model, however, would yield highly erroneous results.

Which reminds me of a joke.

A chemist, a physicist and a mathematician were stranded on a desert island when a case of canned peaches washed ashore. The three of them began to debate the best way to open the cans. The chemist suggested that they soak the cans in salt water and after they had corroded they could easily break the cans open. The mathematician complained that this process would be much to slow. The physicist then suggest that they could climb to the top of a cliff and drop the cans on the rocks below. The mathematician complained that too many of the peaches would spill and be lost in this process. The chemist and the physicist then asked the mathematician for a recommendation. His response? "Let's assume we have a can opener."

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
[ROFL]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EarlNMeyer-Flask
Member
Member # 1546

 - posted      Profile for EarlNMeyer-Flask           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, yeah highly non-viscous. That is what I meant.

[ September 04, 2011, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: EarlNMeyer-Flask ]

Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rawrain is questioning science and wondering about it. That shouldn't be discouraged since that is a way to learn about science.
I disagree. Rawrain is making ridiculous claims based on insufficient observation. That is exactly what science discourages. Science demands humility. The first step in the scientific process is the recognition that we don't know how things and that our preconceived notions of how things work could be wrong. The next step is to do a bunch of research, starting with understanding what others have already discoverd and then moving to original experiments. A scientist only makes claims after thorough research and rigorous testing.

[ September 04, 2011, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Rawrain is questioning science and wondering about it. That shouldn't be discouraged since that is a way to learn about science.
I disagree. Rawrain is making ridiculous claims based on insufficient observation. That is exactly what science discourages.
I agree with Rabbit.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
[QB]
Which reminds me of a joke.

A chemist, a physicist and a mathematician were stranded on a desert island when a case of canned peaches washed ashore. The three of them began to debate the best way to open the cans. The chemist suggested that they soak the cans in salt water and after they had corroded they could easily break the cans open. The mathematician complained that this process would be much to slow. The physicist then suggest that they could climb to the top of a cliff and drop the cans on the rocks below. The mathematician complained that too many of the peaches would spill and be lost in this process. The chemist and the physicist then asked the mathematician for a recommendation. His response? "Let's assume we have a can opener."

[ROFL]

A Texas cattle rancher asked three friends--an engineer, a geologist, and a mathematician--what they would do to corral his large herd in the most cost efficient way. The engineer said he would fence the herd in a round enclosure, because, "everyone knows you can enclose the most area with the least materials by constructing a circle." The geologist said she would construct the corral next to the cliff side of a large hill that was on his property so that the cliff would act as one of the fences and eliminate a lot of necessary materials. The mathematician, after a moment of pondering, said "I would build a fence around myself and define myself to be the outside."

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EarlNMeyer-Flask
Member
Member # 1546

 - posted      Profile for EarlNMeyer-Flask           Edit/Delete Post 
First we make some observations even insufficient ones and use curiosity and preconceived notions in part to make hypotheses and speculations. Testing and experimentation can be done about these hypotheses and speculations. A scientist must claim something before doing any testing and experimentation. What can you test if you claim nothing?

A scientist is free to hypothesize.

Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, and what does a scientist do *next* which is completely missing here?

I wasn't aware that science was making wild-a@%-guesses and then calling it a hypothesis. Not when the information is *already out there* and (incredibly) easily available.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post 
EarlNMeyer-Flask, I think it would make sense to look at how Rawrain's posts got started and what they were saying.

Rawrain started by making a statement that goes against common experience and scientific understanding. He did not explain why the scientific view was wrong. He did not explain how he came to this conclusion or why. He did not provide justification or evidence of any sort.

He came back in, and again re-asserted the same thing, twice in the same sentence.

He came back in a third time, and this time posted not about how they were the same, but about how they were different, though he was wrong about what he was saying.

You say that Rawrain was questioning science and wondering about it, but his posts don't indicate he was discussing the issue with an actual interest in what our current state of scientific understanding about the issue is, and why his different take on it should be entertained. His follow up posts seemed to show not only that, but that he also was fundamentally mistaken in regards to his understanding of some of the basic properties of liquid and gas. He could have done some quick research on the internet before posting, or he could've formulated his post as question for Hatrackers to help explain the difference. He did neither.

You can make the case that he was jumped on too strongly for this (I don't follow Hatrack so closely these days, but it seems like people were in part reacting to his posting history and style as well as the content of this thread), but I don't see anything in his posts that would indicate the intentions that you are putting on him.

Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask:
First we make some observations even insufficient ones and use curiosity and preconceived notions in part to make hypotheses and speculations. Testing and experimentation can be done about these hypotheses and speculations. A scientist must claim something before doing any testing and experimentation. What can you test if you claim nothing?

A scientist is free to hypothesize.

I'm sorry but that's a junior high school level misconception about science. In real science, we first find out everything that's already known about the subject. We review all the experiments that have already been done and reported. We consider possible weaknesses in those experiments and observations that aren't well explained by existing theories. Then, and only then, can we build a "scientific" hypothesis and start proposing methods for testing that hypothesis.

What you are suggesting is wild speculation -- not scientific inquiry. Wild speculation is the antithesis of science.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
so guys, I was just thinking about radiation. You can't see it, I've concluded that it is just another form of gravity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Yea, but radiation makes your hair fall out, so I bet it's actually concentrated time, since you can't see that either, and time makes your hair fall out too.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
And of course, everyone knows that time is money, which means that radiation is wealth.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
If you really do think that gas and liquid are the same thing, there's a simple experiment you could try that will prove your point.

1. Stick your head over a humidifier and inhale deeply.
2. Stick your head in a bucket of water and inhale deeply.

Come back and report any differences and similarities you noticed.

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
And of course, everyone knows that time is money, which means that radiation is wealth.

Want to get rich quick? Move to Fukushima!!
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jake
Member
Member # 206

 - posted      Profile for Jake           Edit/Delete Post 
Assessments of your financial worth will be glowing!
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
Assessments of your financial worth will be glowing!

[ROFL]
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
Assessments of your financial worth will be glowing!

"The results on the tests for your portfolio are in, and I'm happy to say it's growing cancerously!" (I thought I'd inject a little black humor into all this radiant punnery.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2