Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse · 07-31-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Yes, look at her original post. Those are the very first words in the sentence.

But the opening sentence, unlike the thread title, immediately gave the appropriate context:

Quote:

A water molecule's chemical formula is really not H2O, at least from the perspective of neutrons and electrons interacting with the molecule for only attoseconds (less than 10^-15 seconds).

Is this sentence objectionable? Is it bad science reporting? Why?

notMichaelJackson · 07-31-2003, 04:38 PM

I was just mocking Creationists, and there's no need for such mood swings.

07-31-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
I'm not mad at you, Heather. I'm mad at whoever wrote that first sentence.

Oh I knew you weren't mad at me, you just seemed so upset! 5 mad icons in one short paragraph.

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
And I totally expect this to happen!! That's the problem.

I always expect it to happen, that's why I don't let it bother me too much. It doesn't matter how you write a science article (or just about any article), someone, somewhere, is going to misinterpret it or misuse it.

notMichaelJackson: I shouldn't have added your name to my first reply. I knew you were mocking. (as for the mood swings, you should see me in person, I can be a real nutcase under certain conditions. I am one who should never have their finger on the "button"

It's probably the hormone imbalance)

Malagasy Rain · 07-31-2003, 07:10 PM

Wouldn't a better hydrogen to oxygen ratio be 3:2 instead of 1.5:1 according to the law of definite composition? I despise fractions and I'm a math whiz.

Shadowy Man · 07-31-2003, 07:25 PM

Ok, I'm calm now. Hehe..

Anyway, I guess I'm just bothered that some result was found that probably is only interesting to quantum chemists might possibly be trumped up to national news because someone decided to word it provocatively, with full knowledge that wording it as such will help get them publicity.

But then again, I only use 10% of my brain, so what do I know? Maybe those faster than light signals those physicists made a while back can help me.

Deacon Doubtmonger · 07-31-2003, 09:11 PM

... and we should all be quaking in our boots over the dangers inherent in this toxic and lethal substance -- and let's not forget, God used it for His own brand of chemical warfare for 40 straight days!

http://www.dhmo.org/

http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/

http://xtronics.com/reference/dihydrogen-monoxide.htm

07-31-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deacon Doubtmonger
... and we should all be quaking in our boots over the dangers inherent in this toxic and lethal substance -- and let's not forget, God used it for His own brand of chemical warfare for 40 straight days!

Yeah, it's dangerous, but, as Aurora Elegance mentioned, shouldn't it now be called:

Trihydrogen Dioxide

Sounds much more dangerous now doesn't it?

(Almost sounds like some kind of rocket fuel)

Deacon Doubtmonger · 08-01-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HeatherD
Yeah, it's dangerous, but, as Aurora Elegance mentioned, shouldn't it now be called:

Trihydrogen Dioxide

Sounds much more dangerous now doesn't it?

(Almost sounds like some kind of rocket fuel)

Or maybe an insecticide ... or a rust remover ...

Here's another example of pseudoscience re water. James Randi's website has this on "Penta Water":

http://www.randi.org/jr/08-24-01.html

For more, just put "Penta Water" (no quotes, but match case) into his search engine and you'll get all his commentaries on this bit of ludicrous ludicrosity.

Deacon Doubtmonger

MortalWombat · 08-01-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 648 July 31, 2003
by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein, and James Riordon

A water molecule's chemical formula is really not H2O, at least from the perspective of neutrons and electrons interacting with the molecule for only attoseconds (less than 10^-15 seconds). According to new and recent experiments, neutrons and electrons colliding with water for just attoseconds will see a ratio of hydrogen to oxygen of roughly 1.5 to 1, so a more accurate formula for water under these circumstances would be H1.5O

How long will it take until River claims that this is explicitly stated in the Koran?

ex-xian · 08-01-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
How long will it take until River claims that this is explicitly stated in the Koran?

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

07-31-2003, 09:11 PM	#16
Deacon Doubtmonger Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Level 6, Inside a Burning Tomb Posts: 1,494	NO MORE EUPHEMISMS: IT'S DEADLY DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!... ... and we should all be quaking in our boots over the dangers inherent in this toxic and lethal substance -- and let's not forget, God used it for His own brand of chemical warfare for 40 straight days! http://www.dhmo.org/ http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/ http://xtronics.com/reference/dihydrogen-monoxide.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2003, 04:38 PM	#12
notMichaelJackson Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: IL Posts: 552	I was just mocking Creationists, and there's no need for such mood swings.

07-31-2003, 07:10 PM	#14
Malagasy Rain Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: USA Posts: 664	Wouldn't a better hydrogen to oxygen ratio be 3:2 instead of 1.5:1 according to the law of definite composition? I despise fractions and I'm a math whiz.

07-31-2003, 07:25 PM	#15
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Ok, I'm calm now. Hehe.. Anyway, I guess I'm just bothered that some result was found that probably is only interesting to quantum chemists might possibly be trumped up to national news because someone decided to word it provocatively, with full knowledge that wording it as such will help get them publicity. But then again, I only use 10% of my brain, so what do I know? Maybe those faster than light signals those physicists made a while back can help me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.